Draft version September 21, 2018 Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 11/10/09

FAR-ULTRAVIOLET ACTIVITY LEVELS OF F, G, K, AND M DWARF EXOPLANET HOST STARS*

Kevin France1, Nicole Arulanantham1, Luca Fossati2, Antonino F. Lanza3, R. O. Parke Loyd4, Seth Redfield5, P. Christian Schneider6 Draft version September 21, 2018

ABSTRACT We present a survey of far-ultraviolet (FUV; 1150 – 1450 A)˚ emission line spectra from 71 planet- hosting and 33 non-planet-hosting F, G, K, and M dwarfs with the goals of characterizing their range of FUV activity levels, calibrating the FUV activity level to the 90 – 360 A˚ extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) stellar flux, and investigating the potential for FUV emission lines to probe star-planet interactions (SPIs). We build this emission line sample from a combination of new and archival observations with the Hubble Space Telescope-COS and -STIS instruments, targeting the chromospheric and transition region emission lines of Si III,N V,C II, and Si IV. We find that the exoplanet host stars, on average, display factors of 5 – 10 lower UV activity levels compared with the non-planet hosting sample; this is explained by a combination of observational and astrophysical biases in the selection of stars for radial-velocity planet searches. We demonstrate that UV activity-rotation relation in the full F – M star sample is characterized by a power-law decline (with index α ≈ −1.1), starting at rotation periods & 3.5 days. Using N V or Si IV spectra and a knowledge of the star’s bolometric flux, we present a new analytic relationship to estimate the intrinsic stellar EUV irradiance in the 90 – 360 A˚ band with an accuracy of roughly a factor of ≈ 2. Finally, we study the correlation between SPI strength and UV activity in the context of a principal component analysis that controls for the sample biases. We find that SPIs are not a statistically significant contributor to the observed UV activity levels. Subject headings: planetary systems — stars: activity — stars: low-mass

1. INTRODUCTION weather” effects may ultimately control the habitability The success of planet searches employing radial ve- of these systems (e.g., Airapetian et al. 2017). NASA locity techniques and transit photometry has demon- and ESA are currently studying design reference mis- strated that ∼ 300 – 400 stars in the solar neighborhood sions for the detection and/or spectroscopic characteri- (d < 50 pc) host confirmed planetary systems. TESS zation of potentially habitable rocky planets (e.g., Rauer will expand this list dramatically in the next several et al. 2014; Mennesson et al. 2016; France et al. 2016a; years. With so many planets now discovered, the next Roberge et al. 2017). However, rocky planets around M step towards the study of “comparative planetology” is dwarfs will likely be the only potentially habitable plan- the characterization of the physical processes that shape ets whose atmospheres can be probed for signs of life these worlds. Of particular interest are the environmen- (with JWST and ELTs) prior to a Large UVOIR mis- tal parameters that control the physical and chemical sion in the 2030s – 2040s (Deming et al. 2009; Belu et state of potentially inhabited rocky planets around cool al. 2011; Snellen et al. 2015). We need to character- ize the radiation and magnetic environments of our stel- stars (M – F dwarfs; Teff ≈ 2500 – 6000 K). These include the high-energy photon and particle environ- lar neighbors so that spectroscopic observations of their ment (Segura et al. 2010; Tilley et al. 2017), as well as planets can be confidently interpreted. the potential for stellar and planetary magnetospheres to 1.1. The Importance of the Host Star interact (Garraffo et al. 2016). These “exoplanet space It is now clear that the planetary effective surface tem- * perature alone is insufficient to characterize the habitable arXiv:1809.07342v1 [astro-ph.SR] 19 Sep 2018 Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space T elescope, obtained from the data archive at the zone (HZ) and accurately interpret atmospheric gases Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the As- with a potentially biological origin. The UV stellar spec- sociation of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under trum is required to understand HZ atmospheres, as it NASA contract NAS 5-26555. both drives and regulates atmospheric heating and chem- 1 Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Univer- sity of Colorado, 600 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309; USA, istry on Earth-like planets and is critical to the long-term [email protected] stability of terrestrial atmospheres. Our quest to discover 2 Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, and characterize biological signatures on rocky planets Schmiedlstrasse 6, A-8042 Graz, Austria 3 INAF - Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, Via S. Sofia, 78, must consider the star-planet system as a whole, includ- 95123 Catania, Italy ing the interaction between the stellar photons, particles, 4 School of Earth and Space Exploration, Interplanetary Ini- and the exoplanetary atmosphere. The dependence of tiative, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA abiotic formation of “biomarker” molecules (e.g., O ,O , 5 Astronomy Department and Van Vleck Observatory, Wes- 2 3 leyan University, Middletown, CT 06459-0123, USA CH4, and CO2; e.g., Kaltenegger et al. 2007; Seager et al. 6 Hamburger Sternwarte, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029 Ham- 2009) on the stellar far- and near-UV irradiance (approx- burg, Germany imately 912 –1700 A˚ and 1700 – 3200 A˚ respectively), 2 France et al. particularly around M dwarfs, has been well-documented linan et al. 2013; Lecavelier des Etangs et al. 2013; (e.g., Hu et al. 2012; Tian et al. 2014; Harman et al. Kruzcek et al. 2017). Enhanced flare activity in favor- 2016; Shields et al. 2016). able star-planet systems (Lanza 2018) appears promising In addition, the long-term stability of the atmospheres and phase-resolved observations may provide more direct of rocky planets is driven by the ionizing radiation and clues on the properties of exoplanetary magnetism. particle output of their host stars. Atmospheric escape Exoplanetary magnetic fields may be indirectly observ- is a key factor shaping the evolution and distribution of able by the influence they produce on their host stars; one low-mass planets (e.g., Owen & Wu 2013; Lopez & Fort- possible form of the oft searched-for stellar SPIs (e.g., ney 2013) and their habitability (Lammer et al. 2009; Shkolnik et al. 2003; 2005; 2017; Lanza 2008, Lanza Cockell et al. 2016). Extreme-UV (EUV; 100 . λ 2013). The magnitude of this SPI, as measured by the . 911 A)˚ photons from the central star drive thermo- energy dissipated in the stellar atmosphere, should de- spheric heating, and this may lead to significant at- pend on the strength of the stellar magnetic field, the mospheric escape (Tian et al. 2008; Murray-Clay et al. planetary magnetic field, and the relative speed of the 2009a; Vidal-Madjar et al. 2003; Bourrier & Lecavelier planet’s orbital velocity compared to the stellar magnetic des Etangs 2013; Ehrenreich et al. 2015; Spake et al. rotation rate (Lanza 2012). While this technique does 2018). Ionization by EUV photons and the subsequent not provide a direct measure of the planetary magnetic loss of atmospheric ions to stellar wind pick-up can also field strength, it does allow for both the detection of ex- drive extensive atmospheric mass-loss on geologic time oplanetary magnetic fields and their influence on their scales (e.g., Rahmati et al. 2014 and references therein). host stars. Stellar FUV observations serve as means for predicting Tidal (gravitational) SPIs may alter the rotational evo- the ionizing (extreme-UV) flux from cool stars, either lution of the host star and the orbital evolution of the through the use of solar scaling relations (Linsky et al. planet (Poppenhaeger & Wolk 2014). In this way, tides 2014; Youngblood et al. 2016) or more detailed differen- may significantly affect the stellar activity level. This tial emission measure (DEM) techniques (e.g., Louden et phenomenon should be particularly efficient for massive al. 2017). late-type stars, where the convective layers driving the stellar activity are thin and thus more easily affected by tides induced from the planet. Pillitteri et al. (2014) and 1.2. Exoplanetary Magnetic Fields and Star-Planet Fossati et al. (2018) concluded that this is the case of Interactions the WASP-18 system, which contains a massive ≈10 MJ A planet and its host star may interact in many ways, planet orbiting a mid-F-type star with a period of ≈1 with most studies focusing on their photon+particle, day. X-ray and far-UV observations of WASP-18 indi- gravitational, and magnetic field interactions (e.g., Cuntz cate that the star has an anomalously low activity level et al. 2000). A central question for a planet’s abil- for its young age, which Pillitteri et al. (2014) argued is ity to retain an atmosphere is “what is the role of driven by the tidal forces induced by the massive planet magnetic fields?”(Adams 2011; do Nascimento et al. disrupting the α-Ω hydromagnetic dynamo in the host 2016). Searches for exoplanetary magnetic fields have not star. yielded any firm detections to date (Grießmeier 2015). Using data from the MUSCLES survey of planet host- Magnetic fields play a crucial role in protecting sur- ing M dwarfs (France et al. 2016a; Youngblood et al. face life from damaging high-energy particles from stel- 2016; Loyd et al. 2016), we recently presented a tentative lar winds and coronal mass ejections (CMEs; Lammer et detection of stellar SPI (France et al. 2016a). Because al. 2012) as well as promoting the long-term stability of magnetic field strength increases with planetary mass in planetary atmospheres (Tian 2015). In the solar system, the solar system, one may expect that the most mas- Earth is the only “habitable zone” rocky planet (roughly sive, closest-in planets in exoplanetary systems produce comprising Venus, Earth, and Mars) that was able to re- the largest signal on their host stars, therefore SPI sig- tain its water and the only planet out of the three that nals could be expected to correlate with Mplan/aplan (or has a substantial magnetic field today. other proportionalities between the dissipated power and Magnetic star-planet interactions (SPIs) have gained the star-planet system configuration, see Section 4.2), interest in the community because they might provide where Mplan is the planetary mass and aplan is the semi- a way to detect and measure planetary magnetic fields major axis (see, e.g., Miller et al. 2015). The MUS- (e.g., Vidotto et al. 2010; Lanza 2015; Cauley et al. 2015; CLES database allowed us to explore SPI as a function Rogers 2017). The presence of a planetary magnetic field of emission line formation temperature. Probing differ- may induce interactions that can generate planetary ra- ent temperature regimes was critical for the tentative dio emission (Zarka 2007; Ignace et al. 2010; Vidotto et detection of SPI in MUSCLES (described below), and al. 2012), early-ingress NUV light curves (Fossati et al. can be used to constrain the possible location of mag- 2010; Vidotto et al. 2010; Cauley et al. 2015), enhanced netic field line reconnection and subsequent location of flare activity (Pillitteri et al. 2015), and FUV aurorae the plasma heating. France et al. (2016a) suggested that (Yelle 2004; Menager et al. 2013). Radio emission from the systems with close-in, massive planets may indeed be these systems remains inconclusive (Bastian et al. 2018), generating enhanced transition region activity, as probed and NUV light curve interpretations are debated (Turner by ∼ (0.3 – 2) × 105 K gas. Conversely, no correlations et al. 2016b,a). Close-in giant planets are predicted to with the cooler gas emitting in the lower-chromosphere 4 have substantial magnetic field strengths (Christensen et were observed (traced by Mg II and Si II, Tform . 10 al. 2009), however, auroral emission from exoplanets has K). not been conclusively detected so far (e.g., Bastian et However, the small sample size and low-significance of al. 2000; Lazio et al. 2004; France et al. 2010; Hal- the MUSCLES result (≈ 2-σ) compelled us to develop a FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 3 larger sample with broader spectral type coverage. Ex- panding the observational basis for understanding the environmental drivers of exoplanet atmospheres and re- 1×10−14

fining the SPI study were the primary motivations for 8×10−15 SiIII NV CII SiIV assembling the large sample of exoplanet host stars and ρ

−15 CrB non-planet hosting control group presented in this work. 6×10 4×10−15 1.3. A Survey of the Chromospheric and Transition Region Activity of Exoplanet Host Stars 2×10−15 In this paper, we present a new far-UV emission line 0 survey of exoplanet host stars, including all of the avail- 1×10−14

) able archival data from HST -STIS and COS (spectra −15 from IUE are largely too low quality for this work; −1 8×10 Å −15 HD−192310 France et al. 2016b). We acquired new HST -COS −1 6×10 observations of 45 host stars, and have assembled the s −2 × −15 largest UV spectroscopic exoplanet host star and non- Flux 4 10 planet hosting control sample to date (Tables 1 and 2). 2×10−15 For simplicity, we refer to stars without known plan- etary systems as ‘non-planet hosts’, but acknowledge (erg cm 0 −15 that many of these stars likely have planetary systems 1×10 not yet discovered (Section 2.2). We use these data to 8×10−16

compare UV activity levels from a range of formation GJ667C temperatures in the chromosphere and transition region 6×10−16 (Tform ≈ 20,000 – 200,000 K) in F, G, K, and M dwarfs 4×10−16 with and without (known) planets. Using our planet- −16 hosting sample, we examine the correlations between 2×10 stellar activity and a proposed parameterization of the 0 SPI strength (Mplan/aplan). In Section 2, we describe the stellar sample, target selection process, and the new 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 HST observations made in support of this work. Section Wavelength (Å) 3 describes the data reduction and spectral line analysis. Section 4 presents an overview of the results on activity Fig. 1.— Example FUV exoplanet host star spectra used in this work. From top-to-bottom, representative G dwarf (ρ CrB; G0V, levels of planet-hosts, a new scaling to the EUV flux from V = 5.39), K dwarf (HD 192310; K2V, V = 5.72), and M dwarf these stars, the strength of the SPI signal in the data, and (GJ 667 C; M2.5V, V = 10.22) spectra obtained with HST -COS numerical techniques developed to compare the UV ac- G130M. Prominent hot gas lines studied here (Si III λ 1206 A;˚ tivity to stellar and planetary parameters. We present a log10Tform = 4.7, N V λ 1240 A;˚ log10Tform = 5.2, C II λ 1335 A;˚ brief summary of this work in Section 5. log10Tform = 4.5, and Si IV λ 1400 A;˚ log10Tform = 4.9; Dere et al. 2009) are marked with red dashed lines. Strong emission lines 2. STELLAR TARGETS AND OBSERVATIONS at 1216 and 1304 A˚ are mainly geocoronal emission from neutral In order to quantify the absolute UV irradiance lev- hydrogen and oxygen in Earth’s upper atmosphere. els incident on orbiting planets, we require direct ob- servations of cool stars. To date, very few stellar at- In practice, when we refer to “non-planet hosts”, we are mosphere codes have incorporated complete spectral ir- referring to field stars that have been observed in previ- radiance modeling that includes contributions from the ous HST observing programs for other primary science chromosphere, transition region, and corona (although objectives (e.g., solar twins, the sun in time, etc.). see, e.g., Fontenla et al. 2016). Most models, including In assembling this sample, we restricted ourselves to the widely used PHEONIX (Husser et al. 2013) and Ku- the use of observations from the broad wavelength cover- rucz stellar atmosphere models (Castelli & Kurucz 2004), age UV spectrographs aboard the Hubble Space Telescope only include emission from the stellar photosphere and (STIS and COS), as this allows us to preserve a quality thus underpredict the flux below ∼ 2000 A˚ for cool stars control threshold for wavelength and flux calibration and by orders of magnitude (Shkolnik & Barman 2014; Loyd ensures that “optically inactive” M dwarfs are included. et al. 2016). In the following two subsections, we briefly describe these We also wish to understand how the UV activity levels samples. of exoplanet host stars compare with similar stars with- out planets. Therefore, we have assembled a sample of 2.1. Exoplanet Host Stars known exoplanet host stars and a “control” sample with- As the original motivation for this work was the in- out known planets (or where the presence of massive, triguing SPI signal found in the MUSCLES Treasury short period planets has been ruled out; see discussion Survey dataset (France et al. 2016a), we began assem- below). Of course, Kepler and RV surveys have shown bling the list of known exoplanet host stars with archival us that most cool stars have planets, so our “non-planet HST -STIS and -COS observations. Some stars, e.g., hosts” may be stars for which planets have not yet been Proxima Cen, moved from the non-planet host list to the discovered, but are possible target candidates for current planet host list during the course of this work (Anglada- and future planet discovery missions like TESS (Sulli- Escud´eet al. 2016a). This list is also populated with van et al. 2015) and LUV OIR (Roberge et al. 2017). stars hosting transiting planets that have been observed 4 France et al.

of ultraviolet stellar spectra from HST -STIS. To prevent 1.2 omission of targets that were observed after StarCat was ρ CrB assembled, we cross-referenced the catalogs of Valenti & 1.0 HD 192310 Fischer (2005a), Neves et al. (2013), Buchhave & Latham GJ 667C COS LSF (2015), and Terrien et al. (2015) with the HST -COS 0.8 and HST -STIS archives. These surveys include compar- isons of metallicities of planet-hosting versus non-planet- 0.6 hosting systems, so our search yielded several more stars with ultraviolet spectra that had previously been identi- 0.4 fied as non-planet hosts.

Normalized Flux 0.2 2.3. New Observations with HST -COS 0.0 We carried out a SNAP program with the HST -COS instrument (HST GO 14633; PI – K. France) to fill out −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 the sample of UV activity from exoplanet host stars. We Velocity (km s−1) used exoplanets.org to assemble a list of 151 confirmed planet hosting late F through K dwarfs within 50 pc. Fig. 2.— Spectral blow-up of the Si III λ 1206 A˚ From these, we eliminated duplicates from the list above (log10Tform = 4.7) upper chromospheric emission line for the three and applied a brightness constraint, visual magnitude example stars shown in Figure 1 (ρ CrB: G0V, V = 5.39; HD 5 < V < 8.5, to enable robust emission line flux fitting 192310: K2V, V = 5.72; GJ 667 C: M2.5V, V = 10.22). The without compromising HST -COS instrument safety (see 1206 A˚ line-spread function of HST -COS is shown as the green dash-dot line, illustrating that the lines are spectrally resolved in Table 1). all targets. The spectra have been smoothed by 3 pixels (half of In order to obtain a robust census of line formation an HST -COS spectral resolution element) for display. temperatures in the upper atmospheres of cool stars, at UV wavelengths for absorption spectroscopy during we selected spectral coverage from 1150 – 1450 A.˚ The transit (Linsky et al. 2010; Ehrenreich et al. 2012; Ben- G130M mode of COS provides the necessary wavelength Jaffel & Ballester 2013; Loyd et al. 2017). We note coverage, the highest sensitivity of any spectral mode at that transits impact the observed line fluxes by less than these wavelengths aboard HST , and the spectral reso- 5% for the combined observations, therefore we do not lution (R ∼ 16,000) to cleanly separate and resolve the attempt to phase-separate these data. Combining the emission lines. Our HST SNAP observations with COS archival observations with the 45 new exoplanet host star G130M provided access to a suite of spectral tracers, in- observations presented in Section 2.3, we have assembled cluding neutrals: N I λ1200 A,˚ C I λ1275 A,˚ O I λ1304, 1150 – 1450 A˚ spectra of 71 stars hosting extrasolar plan- 1356 A,˚ S I λ1425 A;˚ low-ionization metals and inter- ets. mediate formation temperature species: Si III λ1206 A,˚ Si II λ1260, 1264 A,˚ C II λ1335 A;˚ and the high for- 2.2. Stars Without Known Planets: “Non-planet Hosts” mation temperature lines C III λ1175 A,˚ O V λ1218 A,˚ We have also assembled a sample of stars with no N V λ1239, 1243 A,˚ Si IV λ1394, 1403 A.˚ While all of known exoplanets to compare against the list of planet- these ions were present in the highest S/N observations, hosting stars (see Table 2). In order to obtain medium- only C II, Si III, Si IV, and N V were detected at high to-high signal-to-noise FUV spectral observations of cool significance in most of our target stars, and we conse- stars, they must be brighter than roughly 10th magni- quently focus on these tracers in this work. Figures 1 tude in V-band (V < 10; brighter for the SNAP obser- and 2 display the full spectra of a sample of stars used vations of solar type stars, and somewhat fainter for M in this work, and a zoom in on the Si III emission line, dwarfs). This places the requirement that we select our respectively. sample from large RV surveys that target nearby stars The COS G130M exposure times were between 1905 – (see, e.g., Valenti & Fischer et al. 2005 and references 2020 seconds per star (the typical exposure time was therein). As a result, what we refer to as a “non-planet- 1920 s), in the CENWAVE 1291 setting. The total expo- host” really means that a planet has not been detected sures were split between two focal plane offset positions down to the sensitivity of these surveys. For example, the (FP-POS) to mitigate both the long-term effects of Lyα sample of 1300 FGKM stars described by Marcy et al. gain sag on the detector and detector fixed pattern noise. (2004) has radial velocity precision to 3 m s−1 for FGK The observing program executed from 29 November 2016 stars and 5 m s−1 for M dwarfs. This translates into a through 17 February 2018, with 45 out of the original 80 planetary mass limit of M sin i of roughly 0.1 MJup for SNAP targets (56%) observed. planets with roughly 5 – 10 year orbital periods (semi- 2.4. Extreme-Ultraviolet Explorer Spectra major axes . 3 AU). The HARPS survey has pushed to less than 1 m s−1 (Pepe et al. 2011a), enabling the de- For our complete list of planet-hosting and non-planet- tection of Earth-mass planets with orbital periods up to hosting stars, we identified 12 stars with observations tens of days around nearby M dwarfs (Anglada-Escud´e in the EUVE archive that were considered detections et al. 2016a). Suffice to say, these caveats should be kept by Craig et al. (1997). We assembled these datasets from in mind as we describe differences between the planet- the MAST EUVE archive, and took neutral hydrogen hosting and non-planet-hosting samples. column densities from Linsky et al. (2014). The EUVE The FUV observations for the bulk of the non-planet overlap sample we analyzed included: Procyon, α Cen A, hosts were drawn from StarCat (Ayres 2010), a database χ1 Ori, κ Cet, ξ Boo, 70 Oph,  Eri, AU Mic, EV Lac, AD FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 5

Leo, Proxima Cen, and YY Gem. Analysis of the EUVE the warmer stars in the MUSCLES sample. Fractional data is presented in Section 3.2 and is presented in the luminosities, Fion/Fbolom, were then obtained for each of context of our FUV activity survey in Section 4.1.2. the four measured ions by dividing the line flux by the bolometric flux. 3. ANALYSIS: EMISSION LINE FLUXES AND BOLOMETRIC LUMINOSITIES Figures 3 and 4 display the UV activity levels as a function of the various stellar parameters studied here. 3.1. FUV Emission Line Fluxes of Si III,N V,C II, Figure 3 displays the relationship between FSiIV /Fbolom and Si IV; 1200 – 1420 A˚ and spectral slope (≡ B – V ) and distance. Figure 4 com- We quantify the FUV activity level from our planet- pares FSiIV /Fbolom and the stellar rotational period, for hosting and non-planet-host samples by defining the both the exoplanet host and non-planet-hosting samples. “UV activity index”, Fion/Fbolom, for the four pri- For stars without published rotation periods, we display mary ions studied in this work: Si III λ 1206 A;˚ upper limits based on v sin i measurements (these stars are noted with ** in Tables 1 and 2). To avoid cluttering log T = 4.7, N V λ 1240 A;˚ log T = 5.2, 10 form 10 form the body of the paper, we use Si IV as the representative ˚ ˚ C II λ 1335 A; log10Tform = 4.5, and Si IV λ 1400 A; example ion in this section; plots for all four ions are log10Tform = 4.9. The emission line luminosities, Lion, presented in Appendix B. are simply the wavelength-integrated fluxes scaled by the 2 distance, Lion = 4πd Fion, where d is the distance to the −2 −1 star and Fion is the line flux in units of [erg cm s ], 3.2. EUV Fluxes, 90 – 360 A˚ described in the next paragraph. The formation temper- atures are taken from the CHIANTI database (Dere et al. For each EUVE spectrum, we converted the data to 2009), however we note that different ions trace different flux density units (erg cm−2 s−1 A˚−1) and integrated atmospheric altitude, pressure, and temperature regimes over the spectral region where most stars had apprecia- as a function of stellar mass. ble flux (90 – 360 A,˚ or 9 – 36 nm). These raw integrated Emission line fluxes from N V (λ 1238.82 A,˚ fluxes (erg cm−2 s−1) were first background corrected by λ 1242.80 A),˚ C II (λ 1334.53 A,˚ λ 1335.66 A,˚ subtracting the flux level of an EUVE non-detection in −12 −2 λ 1335.71 A),˚ Si III (λ 1206.49 A,˚ λ 1206.55 A,˚ this band (γ Tau, F (EUV )back ≈ 1 × 10 erg cm −1 λ 1207.51 A),˚ and Si IV (λ 1393.75 A,˚ λ 1402.76 A)˚ were s ). YY Gem was dropped at this point because its measured for both the planet-hosting and non-planet- post-subtraction integrated flux was less than 10% of hosting samples (see Tables 3 and 4). Since all targets the background level. The fluxes were then corrected are located within the Local Bubble, the dust redden- for neutral hydrogen, neutral helium, and ionized helium ing along the line of sight was assumed to be negligible. attenuation by calculating optical depth spectra for the However, absorption from low-ionization gas in the local appropriate N(H I) from the references collated by Lin- sky et al. (2014). The ionization fraction of helium (0.6) ISM, particularly in the C II λ 1334.53 A˚ line, can lead to and the neutral hydrogen to helium ratios (0.08) were systematic underestimation of the intrinsic C II emission strength (Redfield & Linsky 2004). Many of the systems taken from the observed local ISM values from Dupuis et al. (1995). The N(H I) values were necessarily low had faint emission lines with low S/N, making it difficult 18.5 18.1 −2 to fit line profiles to the data. For all sources, the fluxes (all less than 10 and 10/12 less than 10 cm ; see were calculated as Table 3 of Linsky et al. 2014), the ISM transmission functions are relatively linear at these wavelengths and λ +δλ λ +δλ X0 X0 we calculated the average flux correction for the 90 – 360 Fion = ∆λFλ − ∆λFcont (1) A˚ band. These intrinsic EUV fluxes are compared with λ=λ0−δλ λ=λ0−δλ the FUV activity sample in Section 4.1.2. where ∆λ is the average spacing between adjacent data ˚ points (∼ 0.01 A) and Fcont is the flux in the continuum, 4. RESULTS: UV ACTIVITY LEVELS OF EXOPLANET estimated from a linear interpolation across the emission HOST STARS ˚ line. δλ was set to roughly 0.5 A with adjustments made Figure 4 shows the relationship between FUV activ- as needed to accommodate wider features. ity index and the stellar rotation period. The stars are Lbolom is the bolometric luminosity, 2 identified by symbol type and separated into planet vs. Lbolom = 4πd Fbolom. Bolometric fluxes, Fbolom, non-planet-hosting by the use of color or black sym- were calculated as bols, respectively. Comparing the FUV activity indices  2 with the stellar rotation periods, we observe a “satu- 4 R∗ Fbolom = σT (2) rated” plateau followed by a roughly continuous, power- eff d law, decline in UV activity. We classify the UV activ- using the stellar parameters for each target (Tables 1 and ity into two rough categories: High UV-activity stars −6 2). Although Loyd et al. (2016) measured bolometric with FSiIV /Fbolom > 10 and Intermediate-to-Low UV- −6 fluxes for each of the MUSCLES stars by incorporating activity stars with FSiIV /Fbolom < 10 . Very roughly, HST spectroscopy and Tycho photometry, the simpler this transition occurs around rotation periods of 3.5 calculations were adopted for all objects in the survey days. There is some evidence that a low-activity plateau −7 to preserve uniformity across the sample. Comparing (FSiIV /Fbolom < 10 ) is reached around a rotation pe- with the MUSCLES luminosities, we find that this sim- riod of 20 days, but larger samples of slowly rotating ple prescription differs by as much as ∼ 30 % for the stars are needed to fill out this trend. We fitted the cooler M dwarfs (e.g., GJ 1214) and less than 10 % for Si IV activity-rotation diagram with a power-law of the 6 France et al.

M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars G Stars F Stars G Stars F Stars 10 5 10 5 ] ] m m o o l l o 6 o 6

b 10 b 10 F F / / n n o o i i F F [ [

V 7 V 7 I 10 I 10 i i S S

8 8 10 Planet Hosts 10 Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 101 102 B-V Distance [pc] Fig. 3.— The full planet-hosting sample (in filled color symbols) and non-planet control sample (in open black symbols), showing Si IV fractional hot gas luminosity as a function of B – V color (left, a proxy for effective surface temperature) and distance (right). Spectral types are given by different symbols (circles: M dwarfs, diamonds: K dwarfs, squares: G dwarfs, pentagons: F dwarfs) as shown in the legend. The non-planet hosting stars are shown to be systematically factors of 5 – 10 brighter in the high-temperature FUV lines. The Si IV behavior is representative of the behavior of all 4 FUV activity indicators studied here; the full plot set is presented in Appendix B. FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 7

comparison with the Hα sample. Figure 4 also indicates outliers on the high- and low-

M Stars K Stars activity ends of the distribution: intermediate activity G Stars F Stars levels can be found out to rotation periods ≈ 100 days 10 5 (Proxima Cen and GJ 876; due in some measure to flare activity during their UV observations; Christian et al. ]

m 2004; Ribas et al. 2017; France et al. 2012; 2016) o l

o 6 while anomalously low activity levels (HD 28033 and HD b 10 F / 13931) may be reminiscent of planet-induced rotational n o i

F modulation, as has been suggested for WASP-18 (Pillit- [

V teri et al. 2014; Fossati et al. 2018). 7 I 10

i S 4.1. Comparison with Non-planet Host Control Sample

8 Figure 3 shows a clear bimodality of UV activity index 10 Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts of our sample. The non-planet-hosting sample (open, black symbols) are factors of roughly 5 – 10 higher 100 101 102 than the planet-hosting sample. At first glance, these Rotation Period [days] plots suggest that non-planet-hosting stars are more ac- Fig. 4.— The full planet-hosting sample (in filled color sym- tive then their planet-hosting cousins, however Figure 4 bols) and non-planet control sample (in open black symbols), show- shows that this is clearly an effect of the different rota- ing the Si IV activity level (∝ fractional hot gas luminosity) as a function of the stellar rotation period (Prot). Spectral types are tion periods sampled in the two populations. We can given by different symbols (circles: M dwarfs, diamonds: K dwarfs, interpret the differences between the planet-hosting and squares: G dwarfs, pentagons: F dwarfs) as shown in the legend. non-planet-hosting samples as an age bias arising from This figure succinctly demonstrates the bimodal distribution of tar- the detection technique. The large RV surveys of the gets, with non-planet hosts typically having Prot . 20 days and the planet hosts having Prot & 20 days. This is a natural conse- 1990s and 2000s made specific cuts on Ca II activity in- quence of the selection bias for RV planet searches (Marcy et al. dices to avoid excess stellar jitter, higher activity stars 2004). The saturated activity level is log10FSiIV /Fbolom ≈ −5.6, making the extraction of the radial velocity signal more and the power law slope beyond the Porb ≈ 3.5 day break point is −1.1 ± 0.1 (Section 4.1). challenging (although see also Issacson & Fisher 2010). Therefore, these surveys are biased by self-selection for form: ages & 2 Gyr for solar-type stars (Marcy et al. 2004;  Rsat,Prot < Pbreak Valenti & Fischer 2005b); the exoplanet host star ob- log10Fion/Fbolom = α servations essentially give us a picture of the radiation Rsat × (Prot/Pbreak) ,Prot ≥ Pbreak environment at ages & 2 Gyr. On the other hand, ob- (3) servations of the control sample were originally acquired, where Rsat is the logarithmic saturated activity level and in part, because some of these systems were interesting Pbreak is the turnover rotation period where the activity active stars, and therefore provide a better picture of declines. We used the MCMC sampler emcee (Foreman- the typical UV irradiance level experienced by orbiting Mackey et al. 2013) to explore the posterior probabil- planets during the initial ∼ 1.7 Gyr when life would be ity of the free parameters of this model (Rsat, Pbreak, forming and evolving (Jones & Sleep 2010). α), modeling the data scatter as Gaussian in log space with constant standard deviation that we treated as a 4.1.1. Individual “Like-star” Comparisons fourth free parameter. We applied a uniform prior of 1 day < Pbreak < 10 days based on the clear visual trend in A complementary approach to comparing the ensem- the data and treated Prot/ sin i upper limits derived from ble properties of planet-hosting and non-planet-hosting v sin i measurements as equivalent to Prot in the fits. stars is to examine individual systems with very similar With sparse coverage of stars with rotation Prot < 3 spectral type and rotation period. The goal here is to days, we are only able to place an upper limit on Pbreak find stars whose most obvious difference is the presence for the ions studied here, Pbreak . 3.5 days. For all of a planetary system. We note that due to the lim- four ions, Rsat is between −5.5 – −6.0. For the Si IV ited size of the survey, finding systems with like-stellar plot shown in Figure 4, α = −1.1 ± 0.1. For C II, α = parameters and like-planetary systems was not possible −1.0 ± 0.1. For Si III, α = −1.1 ± 0.1. For N V, α = (e.g., HD 189733,  Eri, and HD 128311 below). Using −1.3 ± 0.1. the Si IV activity index as representative of the behavior The UV-activity-rotation diagram is qualitatively rem- of the FUV emission from these stars, we identified the iniscent of the Hα-rotation relationship for M dwarfs pre- following “case studies” for comparison: sented by Newton et al. (2017a), as well as the X-ray- rotation relationship presented by Pizzolato et al. (2003) • The Prot ∼ 11 day K dwarfs (see Tables 1 and for cool stars. The transition to the low-activity UV state 2 for stellar parameter references): Comparing the takes place at shorter rotation periods for cool stars as a similar planet-hosting stars HD189733 (K0 V, Teff whole, relative to M dwarf-only samples. This indicates = 4880 K, Prot = 13.4 days),  Eri (K2 V, Teff = that warmer stars ‘turn over’ to a lower activity level at 4900 K, Prot = 11.7 days), and HD 128311 (K3 shorter rotation periods than for M stars. Due to the V, Teff = 4965 K, Prot = 14 days) with the non- primary goals of the surveys that acquired our UV M planet hosting K dwarf HR 1925 (K1 V, Teff = dwarf observations, we have too few stars with interme- 5309 K, Prot = 10.86 days), we find the average diate rotation periods (10 – 30 days) to make a detailed FSiIV /Fbolom value for the planet hosting stars is 8 France et al.

4.3 (± 0.2) × 10−7, while HR 1925 displays the identical 4.3 (± 0.2) × 10−7.

• The Prot ∼ 28 day G dwarfs: Comparing the simi- −3 lar planet-hosting stars µ Ara (G3 V, Teff = 5800 NV K, Prot = 31 days), 16 Cyg B (G3 V, Teff = ρ = 0.85 5770 K, Prot = 29.1 days), and HD1461 (G3 V, −4 log10p = −3.1 RMS = 0.240 Teff = 5765 K, Prot = 29 days) with the non- planet-hosting G dwarfs 16 Cyg A (G1.5 V, Teff −5 bolom = 5825 K, Prot = 26.9 days) and α Cen A (G2 V, Teff = 5770 K, Prot = 29 days), we find the −6 average FSiIV /Fbolom value for the planet hosting −8 −8.0 −7.5 −7.0 −6.5 −6.0 −5.5 −5.0 stars is 9.8 (± 0.6) × 10 , while the non-planet log F /F hosting sample displays the somewhat lower 6.0 10 NV bolom −8

(± 0.2) × 10 . F(90 − 360Å)/F −3 10 SiIV • The Prot ∼ 100 day M dwarfs: Comparing the ρ = 0.96 planet-hosting star GJ 667C (M1.5 V, Teff = 3440 −4 log10p = −5.7 RMS = 0.261 K, Prot = 105 days) with the non-planet hosting Kapteyn’s Star (M1 V, Teff = 3527 K, Prot = 84.7 −5 days), we see that FSiIV /Fbolom for GJ 667C is 2.7 (± 0.2) × 10−8, while Kapteyn’s star displays an −6 −8 statistically indistinguishable 3.0 (± 1.0) × 10 . −8.0 −7.5 −7.0 −6.5 −6.0 −5.5 −5.0 log F /F The comparisons above show that other than a slightly 10 SiIV bolom higher Si IV activity level in the solar-type planet-hosting log stars, there is essentially no discernable difference be- Fig. 5.— Correlations between the N V (top) and Si IV (bottom) tween the FUV activity levels of the planet-hosting and activity index and the fractional 90 – 360 A˚ flux (from archival non-planet hosting samples. This supports the assertion EUVE observations). The EUVE fluxes have been corrected for interstellar H I opacity. The Spearman rank coefficient (ρ), the p- made above that we are observing an age spread of a sin- value, and the RMS scatter about the best fit line are shown in the gle stellar population as opposed to two distinct planet- legend. The tight correlation argues that broadband EUV fluxes hosting and non-planet-hosting groups. in this region can be estimated to within a factor of ∼ 2 from the FUV activity index. 4.1.2. FUV Activity Index as a Proxy for EUV Irradiance measurements are straightforward and do not suffer from The stellar EUV energy budget contains contributions any significant line-of-sight attenuation or uncertain in- from both the transition region (Lyman continuum as trinsic emission line shapes (see, e.g., the discussion of well as helium and metal line emission in the 228 – 911 A˚ the intrinsic Lyα emission line profiles of cool stars in bandpass) and corona. The FUV emission lines (N V and Wood et al. 2005 and Youngblood et al. 2016). We pa- Si IV) are required to estimate the former (Fontenla et rameterize the 90 – 360 A˚ flux as a function of the UV al. 2011; Linsky et al. 2014), while X-ray data provide activity indices presented above: constraints on the latter (e.g., Sanz-Forcada et al. 2011). log F (90 − 360A)˚ /F
= m×log (F /F )+b We combine our large FUV data set with the smaller 10 bolom 10 ion bolom number of overlapping EUVE observations to: 1) eval- (4) uate if the UV transition region emission lines directly (see Figure 5), where the wavelength range (90 – 360) scale with the EUV flux and if so 2) present a new is in A.˚ We computed the residuals for each ion (de- method for estimating the 90 – 360 A˚ flux from cool fined as the difference between the F (90 − 360A)/˚ Fbolom stars. Both of these topics are critical to modeling the data and the best fit linear model), and unsurprisingly, atmospheric response of all types of planets, from rocky the highest temperature FUV lines showed the smallest worlds (Lammer et al. 2009; Wheatley et al. 2017) to residuals. We therefore favor N V and Si IV as the best hot Jupiters (Murray-Clay et al. 2009b; Koskinen et al. proxies for the fractional EUV flux. The RMS scatter on 2013). the residuals for these two ions are between factors of 1.7 We find that the FUV activity indices that we pre- and 1.8 in linear flux, even though both flux ratios span sented in Section 3 can be correlated with the compa- approximately two and half orders of magnitude in ac- rable EUV fractional luminosity to develop scaling re- tivity level. The best-fit coefficients for the UV activity lations for the EUV flux that hold across spectral type index-to-EUV activity for N V are [m,b] = [1.0 (± 0.1), and activity level. These relations do not rely on Lyα 1.9 (± 0.6)], and the coefficients for Si IV are [m,b] = flux reconstructions or scalings from other lines to esti- [1.3 (± 0.1), 3.5 (± 0.8)]9. mate the Lyα flux8. Other than local ISM absorption While we recommend transition region tracers (Si IV of the ground-state C II 1334 A˚ line, our FUV activity and N V) because these lines are formed in plasma condi- tions closer to the EUV emission and do not suffer from 8 Lyα flux reconstructions and Lyα scaling relations have uncer- tainties that can range from 20% to factors-of-several depending on 9 We note that Proxima Cen is the only star in this sample with the signal-to-noise and spectral resolution of the observations (Lin- a planet inside 0.2 AU. Excluding Proxima from the fits does not sky et al. 2014) change the fit coefficients beyond their 1-σ uncertainty ranges. FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 9

ISM absorption effects, a correlation exists with the lower temperature chromospheric lines as well (C II). The best-

fit coefficients for the UV activity index-to-EUV activity M Stars K Stars for C II are [m,b] = [1.4 (± 0.2), 3.5 (± 0.9)]. The C II– 10 3 G Stars F Stars EUV correlation has larger scatter than those for Si IV and N V; the higher ionization relationships should be used when possible. 10 4 m o l o

Based on the above analysis, we determine that 1) b F / ) the EUV fluxes follow a power-law relationship with the 0

6 5 FUV transition region activity indices over a wide range 3 10 0 9 ( V

of spectral types and rotation periods and 2) with an U E F estimate of the star’s bolometric luminosity and a mea- 10 6 surement of one of the higher temperature FUV emission lines, the stellar EUV flux in the 90 – 360 A˚ band can be estimated to roughly a factor of two. Using the above 10 7 Planet Hosts relationship for N V, we calculated the 90 – 360 A˚ flux Non-Planet Hosts for all stars in the survey and these are presented in Ta- 100 101 102 bles 3 and 4. The computed EUV fluxes are plotted as Rotation Period [days] a function of stellar rotation period in Figure 6. The Fig. 6.— Converting the N V UV activity index to the relative largest uncertainties on calculated F (90 − 360A)˚ comes EUV flux in the 90 – 360 A˚ band (Equation 4), we calculate the ˚ from the uncertainties on the linear fit parameters, which ISM-corrected F (90 – 360A) / Fbolom flux ratio for all stars in our sample with N V measurements. EUV error estimates are propa- correspond to approximately a factor of 2.3 uncertainty gated from the uncertainty on the best fit parameters to Equation on F (90 − 360A)˚ when using the N V–EUV relations. 4. One observes a ∼two-order-of-magnitude decline in the EUV A rough estimate of the total EUV irradiance can be emission strength as cool stars move from the saturated activity regime at rotation periods Prot . 3.5 days to the presumably older computed for the quiet Sun (Woods et al. 2009) and population at P 20 days. an inactive M dwarf (GJ 832) using the model spectra rot & of Fontenla et al. (2016). F?(90 – 911 A)˚ = F (90−360A)˚ loss. The issue of increased EUV irradiance and the at- + F (360 − 911A).˚ For the quiet Sun, mospheric stability of rocky planets (see, e.g., Lammer et al. 2018) is even greater for M dwarfs, where the EUV FG2V (90−911A)˚ = F (90−360A)+[0˚ .57 × F (90−360A)]˚ . irradiance levels of even field-age stars (ages ∼ 2 – 6 Gyr) (5) are predicted to drive runaway oxidation as many Earth For a quiescent M1V star, oceans worth of hydrogen are lost (e.g., Ribas et al. 2017; Wheatley et al. 2017). Our results provide an estimate FM1V (90−911A)˚ = F (90−360A)+[1˚ .12 × F (90−360A)]˚ of the enhancement level of the total EUV + FUV radi- (6) ation environment around F through M stars, anchored where F (90−360A)˚ is the computed EUV flux described by direct observations. above. We note that because the Si IV and N V forma- tion temperatures are an order of magnitude (or more) 4.2. UV Activity Diagnostics and Star-Planet less than the typical coronal temperature of these stars, Interactions we do not suggest extending these relations to the X-ray Figure 7 shows the UV activity indices versus the wavelengths (5 – 100 A).˚ We refer the reader to Poppen- SPI parameter (Mplanet/aplanet), assuming the mass and haeger et al. (2010), Sanz-Forcada et al. (2011), and Loyd semi-major axis of the most massive planet in multi- et al. (2016) for a discussion about the X-ray properties planet systems, for the sample of planet-hosting stars. of planet hosting stars of various spectral types. The results are quantitatively similar when calculating These results argue that the EUV evolution from the correlations with the closest planet. We find a signif- younger to older stars (shorter to longer rotation peri- icant linear correlation between the fractional luminosi- ods) is similar to that from the chromospheric/transition ties for all four ions and the SPI parameter, suggesting region emission. X-ray+EUV evolution studies for solar- that stars with more massive and close-in planets emit type stars (Ribas et al. 2005) find comparable decrease more ultraviolet photons from their chromospheres and (∼ 10 – 20 in the 20 – 360 A˚ band) for solar type stars transition regions relative to their bolometric luminos- from ∼ 0.6 Gyr to ∼ 4 Gyr. The two results sug- ity. In Figure 7, Spearman ρ and p-values are calculated 10 gest a common picture where the overall XUV + FUV for the log10SPI vs. log10Fion/Fbolom relations . We (5 – 1800 A)˚ flux decreases by one-to-two orders of mag- find that for N V,[ρNV ,pNV ] = [0.303, 0.016], for C II, nitude as the stars age from ∼ 0.5 – 5 Gyr. This result [ρCII ,pCII ] = [0.296, 0.019], for Si III,[ρSiIII ,pSiIII ] is consistent with the relative FUV flux decline in the = [0.343, 0.005], and for Si IV,[ρSiIV ,pSiIV ] = [0.315, GALEX sample of early M dwarfs presented by Schnei- 0.015]. In addition to the p-values all being at statis- der & Shkolnik (2018). tically significant levels, Spearman coefficients near 0.3 What are the potential impacts of this flux evolution on for samples sizes between 60 and 80 (our sample has 71 orbiting planets? For terrestrial atmospheres, increasing 10 The p-value is a measure of the ability of the distribution to the EUV flux to levels estimated for the young Sun ( ∼ be consistent with a null correlation, i.e., an uncorrelated scatter 1 Gyr; Ayres 1997) can increase the temperature of the plot. A p-value of 1 is a perfect scatter plot and p-values of less thermosphere by a factor of & 10 (Tian et al. 2008), po- than 0.05 typically indicate a strong correlation for samples sizes tentially causing significant and rapid atmospheric mass- larger than a few tens of data points. 10 France et al. stars) represent a statistically significant correlation at can be understood by considering stellar and observa- the ∼ 99% confidence level. tional biases towards detecting certain types of planets. This result confirms the general trend between First, we find an inverse correlation between the SPI pa- log10SPI vs. log10Fion/Fbolom identified for M dwarfs rameter and the rotation period (Figure 8, right). The by France et al. (2016a), with the caveat that our RV detection method is less sensitive to lower mass plan- larger sample identifies significant stellar and observa- ets around more active stars because the stellar activity tional biases that may drive this result (see Section adds noise to the RV signal, therefore, only the most 4.2.1). Our spectroscopic line sample does not include massive short period planets are found around stars with lower formation-temperature species like Si II and Mg II, small rotation periods. Second, we see a correlation of so we are unable to test the fall-off of this correlation SPI with distance, which we also attribute to an obser- with atmospheric emitting region temperature. We con- vational bias: for fainter stars, only large RV signals are firm that over the roughly 20,000 – 200,000 K temper- able to be clearly detected above the photon shot noise. ature range spanned by our four target ions, this trend Given a sample with similar stellar properties (e.g., K holds. Care should be taken in parsing this sample up and G dwarfs), RV searches will only be sensitive to mas- into sub-categories, as individual flare events, stellar ac- sive short period planets as the stars become fainter, that tivity cycles, or specific star-planet systems will more is to say that only planets with large Mplan/aplan will strongly influence the results. With that caveat in mind, be readily detected at large distances. This finding is we note that the correlation coefficients of the full sam- similar to conclusions from previous X-ray SPI analyses ple are quite a bit lower than found by France et al. demonstrating that the correlation between planet mass for the MUSCLES stars (ρ & 0.6). The log10SPI vs. and X-ray luminosity was driven by distance effects and log10Fion/Fbolom correlations are much stronger in our stellar sample biases (Poppenhaeger & Schmitt 2011). (albeit small) sample of K dwarfs compared to full F – M Because of interdependency of the stellar parameters, sample. The Spearman ρ coefficients and p-values for the an increase in the value of the SPI parameter cannot be K dwarf sample are between 0.77 – 0.79 and p < 0.002, directly associated with an enhancement in fractional lu- respectively, for all four ions. minosity. However, the impact of the SPI parameter can We also considered other potential proportionalities still be investigated by properly accounting for the stel- between the UV power deposition and the star-planet lar properties in our analysis, discussed in the following system architecture that may provide clues about the subsection. physical mechanism responsible for enhanced atmo- spheric heating. Specifically, we explored 1) mag- 4.2.2. Statistical Analysis of Star-Planet Interaction Signal netic reconnection between stellar and planetary mag- One method of incorporating the stellar parameters is 2/3 to assume that each, like the SPI parameter, contributes netic fields (Lanza 2012), with Fion/Fbolom ∝ M plan linearly to the UV activity index. In a multiple linear −4 −1/2 (aplan/R?) aplan , 2) magnetic loop stresses between regression model, a coefficient β represents the amount the stellar and planetary fields (Lanza 2013), Fion/Fbolom added by the corresponding parameter. However, the 2 −1/2 stellar properties themselves are correlated (e.g. B − ∝ Mplan aplan , and 3) tidal torques (e.g., Zahn 2008), 2 −6 V ∝ Teff ; see Table 6), which complicates the standard with Fion/Fbolom ∝ (Mplan/M?) (aplan/R?) . Unlike interpretation. To remove this bias, we first conduct a the case of the “simple” SPI parameter, Mplan/aplan, principal component analysis (PCA) to map the stellar we did not find strong and consistent evidence for cor- properties and the SPI parameter into a new basis. relations between any of these alternative SPI metrics The purpose of the PCA is to transform the multiple and the fractional UV. The N V–SPI correlation was linear regression model into a domain where the “predic- significant for both the magnetic reconnection and tidal tor variables,” or principal components, are independent torque scenario, but this did not hold across the other and orthogonal to each other (Pearson 1901). Each prin- ions. Table 5 presents the Spearman rank coefficients cipal component is constructed as a linear combination and p-values for each of these cases. of the original variables, which in our case are the stellar parameters and the SPI parameter. A full description is 4.2.1. Underlying Stellar Correlations and Planet-hosting presented in Appendix C. We reduce the problem to a Sample Bias set of three principal components (PCs), with PC1 being Although there appears to be a significant power-law most strongly correlated with Prot, B – V , distance, and relationship between the SPI parameter and the frac- Teff . The SPI parameter contributes more strongly to tional luminosities in N V,C II, Si III, and Si IV, it PC2 and PC3. is possible that the trend is produced by observational Equations C.3 and C.5 list the coefficients (β) of the biases within the sample of planet hosts. Stellar sample multiple linear regression analysis in the principal com- biases will serve to limit the detectable bounds of the SPI ponents. The results show that three of the principal that can be confidently claimed. To investigate this ef- components contribute significantly to the observed lin- fect, Spearman rank coefficients were calculated between ear relationship with the N V fractional luminosities the SPI parameter and stellar rotation period (Prot), ef- (Figure 9, left). However, only PC2 and PC3 add to fective temperature (Teff ), distance (d), V , and B − V the Si III and Si IV fractional luminosities, and C II is (see Table 6). We find that the SPI parameter is corre- only significantly dependent on PC3. When we calcu- lated with Prot (ρ = −0.371) and d (ρ = 0.351), at the late the Spearman rank coefficients between the multi- same level as the SPI parameter is correlated with the ple linear regression models and fractional luminosities UV activity indices. for each ion (Figure C.1), we find that the correlations The underlying dependencies on the stellar parameters appear to decrease with formation temperature. N V, FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 11

M Stars K Stars Spearman : 0.311 M Stars K Stars Spearman : 0.382 p-value: 0.011 10 6 G Stars F Stars G Stars F Stars p-value: 0.001

10 6 ] ] m m o l o l o

o 7 10 b b F F / / n n o i o i F F [ [

I I I 7 I I 10

i C 10 8 S

101 102 103 104 101 102 103 104

Mplan/aplan [M /AU] Mplan/aplan [M /AU]

Spearman : 0.338 6 M Stars K Stars Spearman : 0.283 M Stars K Stars 10 p-value: 0.004 G Stars F Stars p-value: 0.022 G Stars F Stars 10 6 ] ] m m o l o l o o b

7 b

F 10 F / /

n 7

n 10 o i o i F F [ [

V V I

i N S

10 8 10 8

101 102 103 104 101 102 103 104

Mplan/aplan [M /AU] Mplan/aplan [M /AU]

Fig. 7.— UV activity levels as a function of the “SPI parameter” (Mplan/aplan) for (top left to lower right) Si III λ 1206 A,˚ N V λ 1240 A,˚ C II λ 1335 A,˚ and Si IV λ 1400 A.˚ Spectral types are given by different symbols (circles: M dwarfs, diamonds: K dwarfs, squares: G dwarfs, pentagons: F dwarfs) as shown in the legend. Best fit linear models in log-log space are shown as the diagonal overplotted line. All UV activity vs SPI parameter correlations have Spearman rank coefficients between 0.28 and 0.38 with p-values between 1 × 10−3 and 2 × 10−2. While the UV activity vs SPI parameter correlations are all statically significant, underlying correlations with the stellar parameters driven by population selection biases are also present (see Section 4.2.2). Section 4.2 describes the analysis of alternative SPI proportionalities.

M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars Spearman : -0.372 1.8 Spearman : 0.36 G Stars F Stars Spearman : -0.209 G Stars F Stars G Stars F Stars 102 50 1.6

1.4 40

1.2 30 B-V

1.0

Distance [pc] 20 101 0.8 Rotation Period [days]

10 0.6

101 102 103 104 101 102 103 104 101 102 103 104

Mplan/aplan [M /AU] Mplan/aplan [M /AU] Mplan/aplan [M /AU]

Fig. 8.— We investigate underlying stellar correlations by comparing B – V (left), distance (center), and Prot (right) vs. the SPI parameter. All plotting symbols are the same as Figure 7 (and shown in the legend) and the Spearman ρ coefficients are listed in the upper right hand corner of each figure. 12 France et al. with the highest formation temperature, has ρ = 0.58, sample bias: exoplanet host stars bright enough to while C II, with the lowest formation temperature, has obtain UV observations largely come from radial- ρ = 0.33. Si III and Si IV fall closer to C II, with ρ = 0.32 velocity surveys that specifically select for low- and ρ = 0.33 for both Si III and Si IV, respectively. activity stars. Conversely, previous observations While these Spearman coefficients suggest a stronger of stars in the solar neighborhood often were origi- correlation with the highest ionization emission line, one nally targeted specifically because of their high lev- needs to evaluate the statistical significance of the impor- els of activity. Thus, we are largely seeing the dif- tance of the SPI parameter to the observed UV activity ference between a field population of young (shorter levels. We do this by computing the Bayesian Informa- rotation period) non-planet-hosting stars and an tion Criterion (BIC; Schwarz 1978) in the FNV /Fbolom older (longer rotation period) exoplanet host star versus linear regression plots with and without the SPI population. While this result is straightforward, term. We find that the BIC does not change appreciably it does present a note of caution for researchers with the inclusion of the SPI term in the principal com- modeling exoplanetary atmospheres: by selecting ponents of the linear regression. Figure 9 (right) shows stellar irradiance levels based solely on samples of the same PCA analysis for N V with the SPI information exoplanet host stars, one is underestimating the excluded from the regression models. We conclude that flux levels seen earlier in that planet’s evolution by the SPI does not play an explicit role in shaping the dis- an order of magnitude or more. tribution of UV activity indices in our sample. Section C.1 in the Appendix describes a comparable analysis of 2. We have compared the FUV activity indices mea- the non-planet-hosting stars. sured in this work with a sample of overlapping Do these results mean that SPIs are not enhancing the stars with moderate-to-high quality EUV spectra FUV activity indices? Not necessarily. Models of both in the 90 – 360 A˚ range from EUVE. We use these magnetic and tidal SPI indicate that one influence of the samples to derive a tight relationship between the planet would be to spin-up the host star, disrupting nom- fractional FUV emission line luminosity and the inal gyrochronological relationships (Lanza 2010; Maxted fractional EUV luminosity. We present a new rela- et al. 2015; Brown 2014). Indeed, we observe a correla- tionship for estimating ISM-corrected EUV irradi- tion between the SPI parameter and the stellar rotation ance in the 90 – 360 A˚ band, accurate to approxi- period (Figure 8, right). This may indicate that what mately a factor of 2, for low-mass stars with N V or we observe as a “stellar interdependence” may in fact be Si IV spectra. EUV fluxes for each of our sample a planet-induced effect whereby the interaction with the stars are given in Tables 3 and 4. planetary system is altering the underlying stellar popu- lation. However, if we assume that the rotation period is 3. Comparing the FUV activity indices with a star- strongly correlated with the UV activity level, an open planet-interaction parameter (Mplan/aplan), we question is why the exoplanet host stars as a group are found a significant correlation (∼ 99% confidence) not spun-up to the level of the non-planet-hosting sam- between the presence of massive, short-period plan- ple. ets and stellar activity as indicated by enhanced FUV line emission. However, observational and as- trophysical biases complicate the direct connection 5. SUMMARY of the enhanced UV activity with the planetary We have presented a survey of UV emission line activ- system. We mitigated these interdependencies by ity indices in F, G, K, and M dwarf exoplanet host stars. creating a principal component analysis treatment We analyzed the largest FUV spectroscopic data set of of the linear regression problem, finding that fits planet hosting stars (71) assembled to date. This was including SPI do not present a statistically bet- complemented by a control sample of 33 stars not cur- ter description of the observations. On the other rently known to host planets. These observations were hand, our observations do not conclusively rule out taken from a combination of archival and new programs the influence of SPIs. Tides raised on the star by with HST -COS and -STIS, targeting the chromospheric the orbiting planets could influence the stellar rota- and transition region emission lines of Si III λ 1206 A;˚ tion period variations, but we do not observe cor- log10Tform = 4.7, N V λ 1240 A;˚ log10Tform = 5.2, relations between the UV activity and tidal SPI strength proportionalities. C II λ 1335 A;˚ log10Tform = 4.5, and Si IV λ 1400 A;˚ log10Tform = 4.9. We studied this data set to compare the UV activity properties of planet-hosting and non- planet-hosting systems, assess the connection between The data presented here were obtained as part of the FUV and EUV irradiance levels incident on orbiting the HST Guest Observing programs #12464, #13650, planets, and to search for enhanced stellar activity that and #14633. N.A. and K.F. thank Sebastian Pineda may result from the interaction of the planet and the for enjoyable discussion about the statistical analysis host star. of this data set. We also acknowledge valuable discus- The main results of this work are: sions with Jeffrey Linsky. This work was supported by STScI grant HST-GO-14633.01. N.A. is supported by 1. The planet-hosting and non-planet-hosting sam- a NASA Earth and Space Sciences Fellowship (NESSF; ples display a bimodal distribution in FUV activ- 80NSSC17K0531) to the University of Colorado at Boul- ity level, with the planet-hosting stars factors of der. K.F. acknowledges the hospitality of the Reagan 5 – 10 fainter in high-energy emission lines than Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall the non-planet hosts. This can be explained by a Islands, where a portion of this work was carried out. FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 13

0.3 = 0.54 0.3 = 0.58

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

Scaled N V Fluxes 0.0 Scaled N V Fluxes 0.0

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Linear Regression Model Linear Regression Model

Fig. 9.— (left) Comparison of the observed N V fluxes versus those fluxes predicted from a PCA analysis incorporating stellar and planetary properties. (right) The same PCA analysis without the SPI parameter included; the two analyses do not show statistically significant differences (Section 4.2.2). The Spearman correlation coefficient ρ describes the agreement between the multivariate linear model and our observations, where we expect |ρ| = 1 for a perfect model. Linear regression plots including the stellar and planetary properties for all four ions are displayed in Appendix C. 14 France et al.

TABLE 1 Stellar Properties of Planet-Hosts

Name SpT VB − VTeff R∗ d Mplanet aplanet Prot [K] [R ] [pc] [M⊕] [au] [days]

HD 120136 F7V 4.49 0.49 63101 1.332 15.6 1860 0.046 3.33 HD 197037 F7V 6.813 0.497 61504 1.15* 32.3 256.6 2.07 19.14 HD 136118 F7V 6.94 0.52 60035 1.585 52.0 13300 1.45 12.25 HD 9826 F9V 4.1 0.54 62102 1.632 13.5 7494 2.55 126 HD 10647 F9V 5.52 0.551 60391 1.17 17.4 294 2.02 108 HD 23079 F9V 7.11 0.57 58481 1.137 33.2 779 1.596 19.1** HD 155358 G0V 7.28 0.545 59004 1.399 44.1 260 0.63 35.2** ρ CrB G0V 5.39 0.612 562710 1.36210 17.2 338 0.23 18.510 HD 39091 G0V 5.67 0.58 58881 2.1* 18.3 3206 3.3 33.9** HD 187085 G0V 7.21 0.57 607511 1.15* 44.0 255 2.0 11.4** HD 106252 G0V 7.36 0.64 57501 1.097 37.8 10500 2.7 22.85 HD 209458 G0V 7.63 0.58 609012 1.2013 48.9 220 0.05 14.414 HD 114729 A G0V 6.69 0.62 56621 1.467 36.1 300 2.1 32.3** HD 13931 G0V 7.6 0.637 590016 1.1716 44.2 598 5.15 4.7** 47 UMa G1V 5.04 0.62 589215 1.2415 14.1 809 2.1 245 HD 10180 G1V 7.32 0.63 591117 1.11* 39.0 64.4 3.4 2417 HD 117618 G2V 7.17 0.603 585518 1.197 38.0 56.1 0.17 18.9** HD 121504 G2V 7.54 0.593 60751 1.096* 45.1 388 0.33 8.619 µ Ara G3V 5.15 0.7 580020 1.245* 15.5 555 1.5 3120 16 Cyg B G3V 6.2 0.66 577021 0.982 21.2 534 1.68 29.122 HD 1461 G3V 6.6 0.674 576523 1.09523 23.2 7.6 0.06 2924 HD 38529 G4V 5.924 0.773 560025 2.8225 42.4 255 0.13 35.725 HD 37124 G4IV-V 7.68 0.667 576327 0.82* 33.7 214 0.5 2526 HD 147513 G5V 5.376 0.644 57001 1.0* 12.8 385 1.3 4.719 HD 222582 G5V 7.69 0.65 56621 1.157 41.8 2425 1.3 25.4** HD 28185 G5V 7.81 0.71 570528 1.037 42.3 1842 1.02 3028 HD 4113 G5V 7.88 0.73 568829 1.036* 44.0 524 1.3 38.3** HD 65216 G5V 7.96 0.69 571827 1.036* 35.6 387 1.4 26.2** HD 178911 B G5V 7.98 0.73 56677 1.147 42.6 2317 0.3 29.7** HD 79498 G5V 8.02 0.706 57404 1.036* 46.1 428 3.1 26.2** HIP 91258 G5V 8.65 0.01 551930 1.036* 44.9 339 0.06 2430 HD 90156 G5V 6.92 0.683 559931 1.036* 22.4 18 0.2 2631 HD 115617 G6.5V 4.74 0.7 55307 0.947 8.6 18.2 0.2 2932 HD 70642 G6V 7.17 0.692 56701 0.9727 28.1 607 3.2 142** HD 47186 G6V 7.63 0.73 567533 1.017* 39.6 22.6 0.05 3333 HD 92788 G6V 7.3 0.694 575434 1.0534 32.3 1133 0.95 31.734 HD 102117 G6V 7.47 0.721 567235 1.277 39.7 54 0.15 3435 HD 4208 G7V 7.78 0.664 55711 0.85* 32.4 257 1.7 07 HD 10700 G8V 3.5 0.72 534036 0.79336 3.7 3.94 0.538 3436 HD 69830 G8V 5.95 0.79 538537 0.895* 12.5 10 0.08 41.2** 55 Cnc G8V 5.95 0.87 520038 0.94338 12.3 1230 5.4 4234 HD 1237 G8V 6.578 0.757 541739 0.9* 17.5 1070 0.49 10.439 HD 154345 G8V 6.74 0.76 546840 0.9440 18.6 304 4.2 3140 GJ 86 G9V 6.17 0.77 535041 0.855* 10.8 1272 0.1 3042 HD 147018 G9V 8.3 0.763 544143 0.96* 43.0 2080 1.9 31.1** HD 164922 G9V 7.01 0.799 529310 0.99910 22.1 114 2.1 4445 HD 189733 K0V+M4V 7.648 0.93 48802 0.8052 19.8 363 0.03 13.447 HD 7924 K0.5V 7.185 0.826 517746 0.7846 16.8 8.7 0.06 3846 HD 3651 K0.5V 5.88 0.83 527016 0.8848 11.1 73.3 0.295 3749 HD 128621 K1V 1.33 0.88 533650 0.86350 1.25 1.1 0.04 36.250 HD 114783 K1V 7.56 0.93 51051 0.787 20.5 351 1.2 45.4** HD 97658 K1V 7.714 0.855 505051 0.90851 21.1 6.4 0.08 38.551 HD 40307 K2.5V 7.147 0.95 475051 0.85651 12.9 9.5 0.132 4851 HD 192263 K2.5V 7.767 0.957 49651 0.757 19.3 203 0.2 24.552  Eri K2V 3.73 0.88 490051 0.88251 3.2 400 3.4 11.751 HD 192310 K2V 5.723 0.907 516653 0.827 8.8 16.9 0.3 47.6753 HD 99492 K2V 7.53 1.024 474054 0.9654 18.0 33.7 0.1 4554 HD 128311 K3V 7.446 0.995 49657 0.737 16.5 463 1.1 1426 HD 104067 K3V 7.921 0.976 496955 0.856* 21.1 59 0.3 34.755 HD 156668 K3V 8.42 1.01 485056 0.7256 24.5 4.2 0.05 51.556 HAT P 11 K4V 9.47 1.19 478057 0.7557 37.9 26.2 0.053 30.558 WASP 69 K5V 9.87 1.06 472059 0.81359 50 83 0.05 23.0759 HD 85512 K6V 7.651 1.18 430051 0.77851 11.2 3.5 0.26 47.151 GJ 832 M1.5V 8.672 1.5 381651 0.63151 4.9 203 3.6 4051 GJ 667 C M1.5V 10.22 1.57 344051 0.56251 6.9 5.7 0.049 10551 FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 15

TABLE 1 Stellar Properties of Planet-Hosts GJ 3470 M2V 12.332 1.168 360044 0.55044 29.3 13.9 0.04 ··· GJ 176 M2.5V 9.951 1.54 331051 0.49351 9.4 8.3 0.066 38.951 GJ 436 M3.5V 10.613 1.45 331051 0.49351 10.3 23 0.03 4851 GJ 1214 M4.5V 14.67 1.73 292051 0.28651 14.6 6.4 0.01 5351 GJ 876 M5V 10.192 1.56 318051 0.42451 4.7 615 0.208 96.751 GJ 581 M5V 10.56 1.2 331051 0.49351 6.3 15.9 0.04 94.251 Proxima Centauri M5.5V 11.13 1.82 305060 0.1460 1.299 1.360 0.0560 8360

References. — (1) Nordstr¨omet al. (2004); (2) Baines et al. (2008); (3) Baliunas et al. (1997); (4) Robertson et al. (2012); (5) Fischer et al. (2002); (6) Butler et al. (1999); (7) Valenti & Fischer (2005a); (8) Marmier et al. (2013); (9) Fuhrmann & Bernkopf (2008); (10) Fulton et al. (2016); (11) Jones et al. (2006); (12) Schuler et al. (2011); (13) Brown et al. (2001); (14) Mazeh et al. (2000); (15) Fuhrmann et al. (1997); (16) Wittrock et al. (2017); (17) Lovis et al. (2011); (18) Tinney et al. (2005); (19) Mayor et al. (2004); (20) Santos et al. (2004); (21) Fuhrmann et al. (1998); (22) Hale (1994); (23) Rivera et al. (2010); (24) Wright et al. (2004); (25) Fischer et al. (2003); (26) Vogt et al. (2005); (27) Bonfanti et al. (2015); (28) Santos et al. (2001); (29) Tamuz et al. (2008); (30) Moutou et al. (2014); (31) Mordasini et al. (2011); (32) Baliunas et al. (1996); (33) Bouchy et al. (2009); (34) Fischer et al. (2001); (35) Lovis et al. (2005); (36) Tuomi et al. (2013); (37) Lovis et al. (2006); (38) von Braun et al. (2011); (39) Naef et al. (2000); (40) Wright et al. (2008); (41) Queloz et al. (1999); (42) Saar & Osten (1997); (43) S´egransanet al. (2010); (44) Bonfils et al. (2012); (45) Isaacson & Fischer (2010b); (46) Howard et al. (2009); (47) Knutson et al. (2007); (48) See et al. (2017); (49) Olspert et al. (2017); (50) DeWarf et al. (2010); (51) France et al. (2016b); (52) Henry et al. (2002); (53) Pepe et al. (2011b); (54) Meschiari et al. (2011); (55) S´egransanet al. (2011); (56) Howard et al. (2011); (57) Bakos et al. (2010); (58) Sanchis-Ojeda & Winn (2011); (59) Anderson et al. (2014); (60) Anglada-Escud´eet al. (2016b)

Note.— Mplanet and aplanet are for the most massive planet in each system, as listed in The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia. Spec- tral types, V , B − V , and distances were taken from Simbad. * R∗ estimated based on spectral type ** Rotation periods are upper limits (calculated from v sin i) 16 France et al.

TABLE 2 Stellar Properties of Non-Planet Hosts

Name SpT VB − VTeff R∗ d Prot [K] [R ] [pc] [days]

HD 28568 F2V 6.484 0.443 66561 1.352 41.5 0.953 HD 28033 F8V 7.35 0.51 6167* 1.22 46.6 1.9** HD 33262 F9V 4.708 0.507 61584 0.962 11.6 43** HD 106516 F9V 6.11 0.46 63275 1.15* 22.4 ··· HD 28205 G0V 7.404 0.545 63066 1.15* 47.3 5.876 HD 25825 G0V 7.811 0.605 60977 18 46.9 6.58 HD 97334 G0V 6.41 0.61 58989 1.013 22.8 7.610 HD 39587 G0V 4.4 0.6 589011 0.9611 8.7 5.2411 HII 314 G1V 10.4 0.8 584512 0.9912 130.5 1.4712 16 Cyg A G1.5V 5.95 0.64 582513 1.2213 21.3 26.914 HD 72905 G1.5V 5.64 0.62 585011 0.9511 14.4 4.911 HD 129333 G1.5V 7.61 0.59 585315 116 35.8 2.60616 HD 199288 G2V 6.52 0.59 575717 0.96917 22.1 1217 α Cen A G2V 0.01 0.71 577018 1.2219 1.3 2920 HD 59967 G3V 6.635 0.639 584721 0.893 21.7 6.143 HD 20630 G5V 4.85 0.67 577615 0.9311 9.1 9.222 HD 43162 G6.5V 6.366 0.702 547323 0.90123 16.8 7.15824 HD 131156 G8V 4.593 0.777 555025 0.827 6.7 6.4326 KIC 11560431 K0V 9.5 ··· 509428 0.89228 ··· 3.1429 HD 166 K0V 6.13 0.75 550915 0.92 13.8 6.2330 HD 165341 K0V 4.03 0.86 540731 0.852 5.1 19.732 HD 103095 K1V 6.45 0.75 5033* 0.93* 9.1 3122 HR 1925 K1V 6.23 0.84 530915 0.93* 12.3 10.8633 HD 22468 K2V 5.71 0.92 4867* 3.934 30.7 2.8434 HD 155886 K2V 5.08 0.85 4867* 0.6935 5.5 20.6936 LTT 2050 M1V 10.331 1.507 343841 0.4* 11.2 ··· HD 197481 M1V 8.627 1.423 360042 0.612 9.9 4.8510 Kapteyn’s Star M1V 8.853 1.58 352743 0.34143 3.9 84.744 LP 415-1619 M2V 13.338 1.482 342048 0.5848 46.3 ··· AD Leo M4V 9.52 1.3 3130* 0.382 4.7 2.610 LHS-26 M4V 10.977 0.077 3130* 0.30146 5.6 87.154 Procyon F5V 0.37 0.42 653049 2.0349 3.5 10.350 EV Lac M4V 10.26 1.59 3130* 0.38* 5.1 4.37851 YY Gem M0.5V 9.27 1.29 382052 0.619152 14.952 3***

References. — (1) Boesgaard et al. (2016); (2) Wood et al. (2005); (3) Linsky et al. (2012b); (4) Ammler-von Eiff & Reiners (2012); (5) Ge et al. (2016); (6) Ram´ırezet al. (2017); (7) da Silva et al. (2015); (8) Linsky et al. (2012a); (9) Eisenbeiss et al. (2013); (10) Hempelmann et al. (1995); (11) Fichtinger et al. (2017); (12) Rice & Strassmeier (2001); (13) Booth et al. (2017); (14) Hale (1994); (15) Rich et al. (2017); (16) Berdyugina (2005); (17) Loyd & France (2014); (18) Zhao et al. (2018); (19) Kervella et al. (2003); (20) Hallam et al. (1991); (21) Reddy & Lambert (2017); (22) Brandenburg et al. (2017); (23) Gaidos & Gonzalez (2002); (24) Kajatkari et al. (2015); (25) Gray (1994); (26) Toner & Gray (1988); (27) Petit et al. (2005); (28) Brown et al. (2011); (29) Balona (2012); (30) Gaidos et al. (2000); (31) Huang et al. (2015); (32) Noyes et al. (1984); (33) Zhang (2011); (34) Fekel (1983); (35) Wood et al. (2012); (36) Donahue et al. (1996); (37) Messina et al. (2010); (38) Maldonado et al. (2017); (39) Malo et al. (2014); (40) Woolf & Wallerstein (2005); (41) Tuomi et al. (2014); (42) Pawellek et al. (2014); (43) Houdebine (2010); (44) Guinan et al. (2016); (45) Pecaut & Mamajek (2013); (46) Newton et al. (2017b); (47) Kiraga (2012); (48) Mann et al. (2015); (49) Yıldız et al. (2016); (50) Arentoft et al. (2008); (51) Pettersen (1980); (52) Torres & Ribas (2002a); (53) Stepien (1988); (54) Newton et al. (2016) Note. — Spectral types, V , B − V , and distances were taken from Simbad. * R∗ or Teff estimated based on spectral type ** Rotation periods are upper limits (calculated from v sin i) *** Rotation period estimated from age of Castor system (Chabrier & Baraffe 1995; Torres & Ribas 2002b) FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 17

APPENDIX SI III,N V,C II, AND SI IV EMISSION LINE MEASUREMENTS FROM THE PLANET-HOSTING AND NON-PLANET-HOSTING SAMPLES In Tables 3 (planet-hosting stars) and 4 (non-planet hosts), we display the full emission line measurement lists for both samples studied in this work.

TABLE 3 Planet Host Flux Measurements

a Name Fbol N V C II Si III Si IV F (90 − 360A˚) [10−7 [10−15 [10−15 [10−15 [10−15 [10−14 erg s−1 cm−2] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2]

HD 120136 3.3 81.4 ± 0.9 ··· 164 ± 2 ··· 662 HD 197037 0.5 0.4 ± 0.1 4.1 ± 0.2 2.9 ± 0.1 2.7 ± 0.3 3.38 HD 136118 0.3 0.7 ± 0.1 6.5 ± 0.2 4.5 ± 0.2 3.9 ± 0.3 5.39 HD 9826 6.3 20 ± 1 132 ± 2 117 ± 4 45 ± 2 163 HD 10647 1.5 5.8 ± 0.2 46.2 ± 0.6 39.9 ± 0.6 29.0 ± 0.7 47.4 HD 23079 0.4 0.5 ± 0.1 3.4 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.3 3.68 HD 155358 0.3 0.2 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.2 1.84 ρ CrB 1.8 1.2 ± 0.1 13.8 ± 0.3 7.2 ± 0.3 6.1 ± 0.3 9.43 HD 39091 4.6 2.4 ± 0.2 15.3 ± 0.3 8.8 ± 0.2 7.0 ± 0.3 19.7 HD 187085 0.3 0.5 ± 0.1 5.4 ± 0.2 3.4 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.2 4.40 HD 209458 0.2 0.7 ± 0.6 ··· 1.8 ± 0.3 ··· 5.74 HD 114729 A 0.5 0.5 ± 0.1 4.5 ± 0.2 2.7 ± 0.2 1.8 ± 0.2 4.35 HD 13931 0.2 0.7 ± 0.1 4.4 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.3 5.76 47 UMa 2.7 3.4 ± 0.2 26.0 ± 0.5 14.2 ± 0.4 10.7 ± 0.4 27.7 HD 10180 0.3 0.7 ± 0.1 4.4 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2 2.3 ± 0.2 5.58 HD 117618 0.3 0.5 ± 0.1 5.4 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.1 2.1 ± 0.2 4.19 HD 121504 0.2 1.1 ± 0.2 9.3 ± 0.3 6.7 ± 0.2 7.6 ± 0.3 9.02 µ Ara 1.9 3.6 ± 0.2 24.0 ± 0.4 13.2 ± 0.3 12.4 ± 0.4 29.2 16 Cyg B 0.7 ··· 13.5 ± 0.2 8.3 ± 0.1 7.4 ± 0.2 ··· HD 1461 0.7 2.5 ± 0.1 13.6 ± 0.3 9.1 ± 0.2 8.7 ± 0.4 20.1 HD 38529 1.3 4.8 ± 0.2 24.9 ± 0.4 18.0 ± 0.4 14.9 ± 0.4 38.9 HD 37124 0.2 0.2 ± 0.1 5.0 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2 2.8 ± 0.3 1.83 HD 147513 1.9 12.7 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.2 ··· 3.2 ± 0.6 103 HD 222582 0.2 0.4 ± 0.1 3.4 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.1 2.4 ± 0.3 3.44 HD 28185 0.2 0.7 ± 0.1 5.6 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 0.1 2.6 ± 0.3 5.54 HD 4113 0.2 0.6 ± 0.1 3.4 ± 0.2 1.7 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.3 4.62 HD 65216 0.3 0.6 ± 0.1 5.1 ± 0.3 3.1 ± 0.2 3.9 ± 0.3 5.06 HD 178911 B 0.2 1.1 ± 0.1 5.6 ± 0.2 3.8 ± 0.2 4.8 ± 0.4 8.70 HD 79498 0.2 0.4 ± 0.1 2.4 ± 0.2 1.8 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.3 3.50 HIP 91258 0.1 1.0 ± 0.3 3.7 ± 0.2 2.7 ± 0.2 4.1 ± 0.4 7.97 HD 90156 0.6 0.5 ± 0.1 5.7 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.2 3.1 ± 0.3 3.75 HD 115617 3.3 4 ± 2 28 ± 1 7 ± 3 12 ± 2 32.5 HD 70642 0.4 1.4 ± 0.1 8.5 ± 0.2 5.5 ± 0.2 5.5 ± 0.3 11.5 HD 47186 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 3.9 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.2 3.1 ± 0.3 6.54 HD 92788 0.3 1.1 ± 0.1 7.4 ± 0.3 4.3 ± 0.2 4.1 ± 0.3 8.53 HD 102117 0.3 0.6 ± 0.1 3.8 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.2 2.5 ± 0.3 5.21 HD 4208 0.2 0.3 ± 0.1 2.6 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.1 1.5 ± 0.3 2.32 HD 10700 11.1 11.9 ± 0.7 66.0 ± 0.8 30 ± 2 16.9 ± 0.7 96.7 HD 69830 1.2 1.6 ± 0.1 14.8 ± 0.3 7.1 ± 0.2 8.0 ± 0.4 13.1 55 Cnc 1.2 3.04 ± 0.4 24.7 ± 0.1 15.9 ± 0.1 ··· 24.7 HD 1237 0.7 20.8 ± 0.7 ······ 0.2 ± 0.8 169 HD 154345 0.7 1.9 ± 0.1 14.8 ± 0.3 8.2 ± 0.2 7.3 ± 0.4 15.8 GJ 86 1.5 4.4 ± 0.2 36.2 ± 0.5 15.2 ± 0.6 15.4 ± 0.5 35.4 HD 147018 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 4.2 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2 3.8 ± 0.4 4.84 HD 164922 0.5 0.6 ± 0.1 6.4 ± 0.3 3.7 ± 0.2 3.9 ± 0.3 4.84 HD 189733 0.3 5.8 ± 0.1 31.6 ± 0.2 11.3 ± 0.1 12.4 ± 0.2 47.1 HD 7924 0.4 1.5 ± 0.1 10.1 ± 0.3 4.0 ± 0.2 5.7 ± 0.3 12.1 HD 3651 1.4 3.8 ± 0.2 33.6 ± 0.6 13.3 ± 0.3 16.5 ± 0.5 31.1 HD 128621 110.8 408 ± 2 2572 ± 3 1268 ± 4 1026 ± 2 3320 HD 114783 0.3 0.9 ± 0.1 7.7 ± 0.3 2.8 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.3 7.62 HD 97658 0.3 0.37 ± 0.04 2.45 ± 0.07 1.76 ± 0.06 1.42 ± 0.07 3.00 HD 40307 0.6 0.37 ± 0.04 2.76 ± 0.07 1.66 ± 0.06 1.47 ± 0.08 3.02 HD 192263 0.3 4.7 ± 0.2 25.7 ± 0.5 8.7 ± 0.2 10.6 ± 0.4 38.4  Eri 12.6 104 ± 1 451 ± 7 372 ± 2 335 ± 6 1200b HD 192310 1.7 4.9 ± 0.2 41.0 ± 0.7 14.5 ± 0.3 14.6 ± 0.5 39.4 HD 99492 0.4 1.8 ± 0.2 10.4 ± 0.3 3.6 ± 0.2 5.3 ± 0.4 15.0 HD 128311 0.3 8.5 ± 0.3 41.1 ± 0.6 14.0 ± 0.3 18.0 ± 0.5 68.8 HD 104067 0.3 3.0 ± 0.2 14.9 ± 0.4 5.1 ± 0.2 7.4 ± 0.4 24.5 HD 156668 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 2.7 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.1 1.3 ± 0.3 3.00 HAT P 11 0.06 ··· 4.66 ± 0.09 1.17 ± 0.04 ······ WASP 69 0.04 0.57 ± 0.02 2.59 ± 0.03 1.26 ± 0.2 ··· 4.64 HD 85512 0.5 0.69 ± 0.05 3.96 ± 0.08 1.72 ± 0.06 1.82 ± 0.09 5.59 GJ 832 1.0 3.51 ± 0.08 3.78 ± 0.08 2.55 ± 0.06 3.33 ± 0.09 28.5 GJ 667 C 0.3 0.72 ± 0.05 0.65 ± 0.05 0.51 ± 0.04 0.83 ± 0.07 5.82 18 France et al.

TABLE 3 — Continued

a Name Fbol N V C II Si III Si IV F (90 − 360A˚) [10−7 [10−15 [10−15 [10−15 [10−15 [10−14 erg s−1 cm−2] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2]

GJ 3470 0.02 3.0 ± 0.5 ··· 3.0 ± 0.9 ··· 24.4 GJ 176 0.09 3.10 ± 0.08 5.4 ± 0.1 2.15 ± 0.06 2.30 ± 0.09 25.2 GJ 436 0.08 0.96 ± 0.05 1.09 ± 0.06 0.52 ± 0.04 0.68 ± 0.07 7.77 GJ 1214 0.008 0.18 ± 0.04 0.09 ± 0.03 0.08 ± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.04 1.50 GJ 876 0.2 10.7 ± 0.1 10.6 ± 0.1 8.1 ± 0.1 8.4 ± 0.1 87.0 GJ 581 0.2 0.53 ± 0.04 0.48 ± 0.04 0.29 ± 0.04 0.44 ± 0.07 4.34 Proxima Centauri 0.29 38.7 ± 0.6 36.1 ± 0.4 12.6 ± 0.9 22.2 ± 0.5 150b

a 4 2 Fbol = σTeff (R∗/d) b Direct measurement of the 90 – 360 A˚ flux from EUVE, corrected for interstellar hydrogen and helium attenuation. FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 19

TABLE 4 Non-Planet Host Flux Measurements

a Name Fbol N V C II Si III Si IV F (90 − 360A˚) [10−7 [10−15 [10−15 [10−15 [10−15 [10−14 erg s−1 cm−2] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 A˚−1] erg s−1 cm−2 ]

HD 28568 0.6 23 ± 5 120 ± 4 82 ± 8 65 ± 5 189 HD 28033 0.3 ··· 4.8 ± 0.9 1 ± 3 7 ± 2 ··· HD 33262 2.8 47 ± 2 287 ± 2 319 ± 4 307 ± 3 380 HD 106516 1.2 4 ± 3 22 ± 2 4 ± 5 1 ± 4 32.6 HD 28205 0.3 8 ± 2 27 ± 2 22 ± 4 17 ± 3 67.8 HD 25825 0.2 10.6 ± 0.5 36.7 ± 0.7 40.9 ± 0.8 47 ± 1 86.2 HD 97334 0.7 15 ± 2 86 ± 2 48 ± 4 82 ± 2 121 HD 39587 4.3 ··· 454 ± 2 ··· 385 ± 2 680b HII 314 0.02 2.24 ± 0.08 6.8 ± 0.1 3.70 ± 0.9 4.8 ± 0.1 18.2 16 Cyg A 1.1 ··· 17.7 ± 0.2 10.8 ± 0.2 8.3 ± 0.2 ··· HD 72905 1.5 ··· 184 ± 1 ··· 136 ± 1 ··· HD 129333 0.3 ··· 124 ± 1 ··· 106 ± 1 ··· HD 199288 0.6 0.31 ± 0.06 3.77 ± 0.07 1.79 ± 0.08 1.48 ± 0.09 2.53 α Cen A 271 356 ± 5 2690 ± 8 1590 ± 12 1220 ± 7 2900b HD 59967 0.6 18 ± 2 60 ± 2 71 ± 3 47 ± 2 145 HD 20630 3.3 39 ± 1 234 ± 2 216 ± 4 209 ± 2 40b HD 43162 0.7 3 ± 2 73 ± 2 48 ± 5 61 ± 3 22.8 HD 131156 3.9 70 ± 4 451 ± 6 281 ± 12 317 ± 5 830b KIC 11560431 0.0002 4.6 ± 1 16.4 ± 0.2 5.7 ± 0.1 6.9 ± 0.1 37.0 HD 166 1.1 43 ± 2 126 ± 3 96 ± 5 94 ± 3 350 HD 165341 6.9 71 ± 2 437 ± 2 249 ± 5 206 ± 2 700b HD 103095 1.9 0.1 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.1 0.56 ± 0.09 1.2 ± 0.1 1.11 HR 1925 1.3 21 ± 2 85 ± 2 63 ± 4 56 ± 2 171 HD 22468 2.6 600 ± 3 2550 ± 5 1280 ± 12 1200 ± 4 4880 HD 155886 2.6 19 ± 1 131 ± 1 66 ± 2 ··· 151 LTT 2050 0.06 1.7 ± 0.1 2.0 ± 0.2 0.58 ± 0.09 1.4 ± 0.2 13.6 HD 197481 0.2 70 ± 1 206 ± 2 788 ± 2 864 ± 1 720b Kapteyn’s Star 0.3 0.2 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.3 1.98 LP 415-1619 0.006 ··· 2.97 ± 0.07 0.77 ± 0.04 ······ AD Leo 0.2 136 ± 1 219 ± 1 142 ± 1 159 ± 1 1100b LHS-26 0.08 ··············· Procyon 170 1650 ± 5 8720 ± 9 4940 ± 10 4160 ± 20 3500b EV Lac 0.2 41 ± 1 51 ± 10 35 ± 2 39 ± 1 450b YY Gem 0.1 41.7 ± 0.7 223 ± 1 34 ± 1 82 ± 1 339

a 4 2 Fbol = σTeff (R∗/d) b Direct measurement of the 90 – 360 A˚ flux from EUVE, corrected for interstellar H I attenuation. 20 France et al.

TABLE 5 Correlations between SPI parameters and Fion/Fbolom

ion SPI parameter ρ p-value ∆BIC Improved BIC

N V Mplan/aplan 0.338 0.004 0.0172 with SPI Si III Mplan/aplan 0.382 0.001 ······ Si IV Mplan/aplan 0.283 0.022 ······ C II Mplan/aplan 0.311 0.011 ······ 2/3 −4 −1/2 a N V Mplan (aplan/R?) aplan 0.300 0.017 4.089 without SPI 2/3 −4 −1/2 Si III Mplan (aplan/R?) aplan 0.108 0.392 ······ 2/3 −4 −1/2 Si IV Mplan (aplan/R?) aplan 0.047 0.725 ······ 2/3 −4 −1/2 C II Mplan (aplan/R?) aplan 0.087 0.503 ······ 2 −1/2 a N V Mplan aplan 0.053 0.679 4.056 without SPI 2 −1/2 Si III Mplan aplan 0.264 0.034 ······ 2 −1/2 Si IV Mplan aplan 0.277 0.034 ······ 2 −1/2 C II Mplan aplan 0.210 0.101 ······ 2 −6 a N V (Mplan/M?) (aplan/R?) 0.319 0.011 4.081 without SPI 2 −6 Si III (Mplan/M?) (aplan/R?) 0.146 0.246 ······ 2 −6 Si IV (Mplan/M?) (aplan/R?) 0.089 0.505 ······ 2 −6 C II (Mplan/M?) (aplan/R?) 0.115 0.376 ······

Note.— ρ is the Spearman rank coefficient, where |ρ| = 1 for a perfect correlation and ρ = 0 when the data are uncorrelated. The p-value indicates the likelihood of obtaining |ρ| closer to 1, under the assumption that there is no correlation between the two parameters (i.e. the data are randomly distributed). a The larger ∆BIC values in the latter three SPI parameters is the result of 4 PCs being required to fit the Fion/Fbolom distribution as opposed

to 3 PCs for the SPI parameter set to Mplan/aplan (see Section 4.2 and Appendix C). FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 21

TABLE 6 Correlations between Stellar Parameters: Planet-Hosts

Prot Teff d V B − V log (SPI) ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value

−8 −3 −2 −9 −3 Prot ······ -0.612 1 × 10 -0.338 1 × 10 0.298 1 × 10 0.648 1 × 10 -0.371 1 × 10 −8 −6 −5 −32 Teff -0.612 1 × 10 ······ 0.506 6 × 10 -0.475 2 × 10 -0.931 3 × 10 0.174 0.1 d -0.338 1 × 10−3 0.506 6 × 10−6 ······ 0.305 9 × 10−3 -0.473 3 × 10−5 0.351 3 × 10−3 V 0.298 0.01 -0.475 2 × 10−5 0.305 9 × 10−3 ······ 0.481 2 × 10−5 0.191 0.1 B − V 0.648 1 × 10−9 -0.931 3 × 10−32 -0.473 3 × 10−5 0.481 2 × 10−5 ······ -0.194 0.1 log (SPI) -0.371 1 × 10−3 0.174 0.1 0.351 3 × 10−3 0.191 0.1 -0.194 0.1 ······

Note.— ρ is the Spearman rank coefficient, where |ρ| = 1 for a perfect correlation and ρ = 0 when the data are uncorrelated. The p-value indicates the likelihood of obtaining |ρ| closer to 1, under the assumption that there is no correlation between the two parameters (i.e. the data are randomly distributed). Here we define “significant” correlations here as having |ρ| > 0.3 (marked in bold for the correlations with SPI), see Section 4.2. 22 France et al.

SI III,N V,C II, AND SI IV ACTIVITY LEVELS VS. B – V , DISTANCE, AND ROTATION PERIOD

In Figures B.1 – B.3 we show the correlation plots between the UV activity indices and B – V , d, and Prot.

M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars G Stars F Stars 10 5 G Stars F Stars 10 5

6 ]

] 10 m m o o l

6 l o 10 o b b F F / / 7 n

n 10 o o i i F F [ [

I 7 I V

I 10

i 10 8 N S

10 8 10 9 Planet Hosts Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 B-V B-V

10 4 M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars G Stars F Stars G Stars F Stars 10 5 10 5 ] ] m m o l o l o 6

o 6 10 b 10 b F F / / n n o i o i F F [ [

7 I

10 V

I 7 I

10

i C S

10 8 8 Planet Hosts 10 Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 B-V B-V Fig. B.1.— UV activity levels as a function of the spectral slope (B – V ) for (top left to lower right) Si III λ 1206 A,˚ N V λ 1240 A,˚ C II λ 1335 A,˚ and Si IV λ 1400 A.˚ Spectral types are given by different symbols (circles: M dwarfs, diamonds: K dwarfs, squares: G dwarfs, pentagons: F dwarfs) as shown in the legend. FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 23

M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars G Stars F Stars 10 5 G Stars F Stars 10 5

6 ]

] 10 m m o o l

6 l o 10 o b b F F / / 7 n

n 10 o o i i F F [ [

I 7 I V

I 10

i 10 8 N S

10 8 10 9 Planet Hosts Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts

101 102 101 102 Distance [pc] Distance [pc]

10 4 M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars G Stars F Stars G Stars F Stars 10 5 10 5 ] ] m m o l o l o 6

o 6 10 b 10 b F F / / n n o i o i F F [ [

7 I

10 V

I 7 I

10

i C S

10 8 8 Planet Hosts 10 Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts

101 102 101 102 Distance [pc] Distance [pc] Fig. B.2.— UV activity levels as a function of distance for (top left to lower right) Si III λ 1206 A,˚ N V λ 1240 A,˚ C II λ 1335 A,˚ and Si IV λ 1400 A.˚ Spectral types are given by different symbols (circles: M dwarfs, diamonds: K dwarfs, squares: G dwarfs, pentagons: F dwarfs) as shown in the legend. 24 France et al.

M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars G Stars F Stars 10 5 G Stars F Stars 10 5

6 ]

] 10 m m o o l

6 l o 10 o b b F F / / 7 n

n 10 o o i i F F [ [

I 7 I V

I 10

i 10 8 N S

10 8 10 9 Planet Hosts Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts

100 101 102 100 101 102 Rotation Period [days] Rotation Period [days]

10 4 M Stars K Stars M Stars K Stars G Stars F Stars G Stars F Stars 10 5 10 5 ] ] m m o l o l o 6

o 6 10 b 10 b F F / / n n o i o i F F [ [

7 I

10 V

I 7 I

10

i C S

10 8 8 Planet Hosts 10 Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts Non-Planet Hosts

100 101 102 100 101 102 Rotation Period [days] Rotation Period [days]

Fig. B.3.— UV activity levels as a function of stellar rotation period (Prot) for (top left to lower right) Si III λ 1206 A,˚ N V λ 1240 A,˚ C II λ 1335 A,˚ and Si IV λ 1400 A.˚ Spectral types are given by different symbols (circles: M dwarfs, diamonds: K dwarfs, squares: G dwarfs, pentagons: F dwarfs) as shown in the legend. FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 25

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF MULTI-VARIATE SPI SIGNALS In this Appendix, we describe the methodology and calculations for the PCA analysis of the star-planet-interaction signal in our UV activity survey (see the overview in Section 4.2). First, the predictor variables must be centered and scaled as v u n ˜ xi − x¯ uX 2 Xi,scaled = ,Lx = t (xi − x¯) (C1) L x i=1 where each xi is the predictor variable corresponding to an individual stellar system andx ¯ is the average of the entire sample. The scaling simplifies the problem by allowing us to calculate the correlations between scaled parameters as n X Cor (Xj,Xk) = X˜ij,scaledX˜ik,scaled (C2) i=1 where the indices j and k represent predictor variables (e.g. j for B − V and k for Teff ). We construct a matrix by calculating correlation coefficients between each set of scaled predictor variables:

Prot VB − V d Teff log (SPI) Prot  1 0.39 0.56 −0.34 −0.58 −0.26  V 0.39 1 0.67 0.17 −0.68 0.08   B − V  0.56 0.67 1 −0.48 −0.97 −0.20  d −0.34 0.17 −0.48 1 0.52 0.35    Teff −0.58 −0.68 −0.97 0.52 1 0.20 log (SPI) −0.26 0.08 −0.20 0.35 0.20 1

As expected, each parameter is perfectly correlated with itself, as evidenced by the coefficients of 1 along the diagonal of the correlation matrix. Next, we calculate the eigenvalues of the correlation matrix and place them in descending order (λ = 3.22, 1.41, 0.72, 0.54, 0.085, 0.026), where the largest eigenvalue is associated with the principal component that contributes most to the spread of fractional luminosities. The principal components can be constructed from the eigenvectors of the correlation matrix, in order from most to least significant:

PC1 = −0.41 × Prot,scaled − 0.37 × Vscaled − 0.53 × (B − V )scaled

+ 0.30 × dscaled + 0.54 × Teff,scaled + 0.18 × log (SPI)scaled

PC2 = −0.059 × Prot,scaled + 0.58 × Vscaled + 0.089 × (B − V )scaled

+ 0.58 × dscaled − 0.077 × Teff,scaled + 0.57 × log (SPI)scaled

PC3 = −0.26 × Prot,scaled − 0.24 × Vscaled + 0.14 × (B − V )scaled − 0.55 × dscaled − 0.16 × Teff,scaled + 0.73 × log (SPI) scaled (C3) PC4 = 0.87 × Prot,scaled − 0.20 × Vscaled − 0.22 × (B − V )scaled

+ 0.0083 × dscaled + 0.19 × Teff,scaled + 0.34 × log (SPI)scaled

PC5 = 0.017 × Prot,scaled − 0.64 × Vscaled + 0.56 × (B − V )scaled

+ 0.50 × dscaled − 0.16 × Teff,scaled + 0.030 × log (SPI)scaled

PC6 = 0.012 × Prot,scaled + 0.18 × Vscaled + 0.57 × (B − V )scaled

− 0.16 × dscaled + 0.79 × Teff,scaled + 0.00026 × log (SPI)scaled Although it is difficult to quantify the contribution of the individual predictor variables to each principal component, we can get a rough sense of which are significant by calculating the Spearman rank coefficients (see Table 7). We find that the most dominant principal component (PC1) is significantly correlated with Prot, B − V , d, and Teff . The SPI parameter is only weakly correlated with PC1, but it contributes more to PC2 and PC3, which show smaller correlations with the other stellar parameters. PC4, PC5, and PC6 are not strongly correlated with any of the predictor variables, indicating that they contribute less to the multiple linear regression and can be dropped from the analysis (Peres-Neto et al. 2005). The new linear model becomes

log (Lion/Lbol) = β0 + [PC1 × βPC1 ] + [PC2 × βPC2 ] + [PC3 × βPC3 ] (C4) Table 8 lists the coefficients (β) of the multiple linear regression analysis described by Equation C.4.

Non-Planet Hosts The same analysis that we carried out for the planet-hosting stars was also applied to the sample of non-planet hosts, with the SPI parameter dropped as a predictor variable. The resulting correlation matrix, calculated from the scaled parameters, is 26 France et al.

= 0.33 0.2 = 0.37 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.1

Scaled C II Fluxes 0.1 Scaled Si III Fluxes

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Linear Regression Model Linear Regression Model

0.3 = 0.32 0.3 = 0.58 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.0 Scaled N V Fluxes

Scaled Si IV Fluxes 0.0 0.1

0.2 0.1

0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Linear Regression Model Linear Regression Model Fig. C.1.— Comparison of the linear regression model and relative ion fluxes for planet-hosting stars. The Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) describes the agreement between the multivariate linear model and our observations, where we expect |ρ| = 1 for a perfect model. Linear regression plots for all four ions are displayed in Appendix C.

Prot VB − V d Teff Prot  1 −0.25 −0.20 −0.59 −0.22 V −0.25 1 0.14 0.52 −0.33   B − V −0.20 0.14 1 −0.055 −0.40 d −0.59 0.52 −0.055 1 0.30  Teff −0.22 −0.33 −0.40 0.30 1

corresponding to eigenvalues [1.96, 1.58, 0.90, 0.36, 0.20] and principal components

PC1 = 0.58 × Prot,scaled − 0.47 × Vscaled − 0.09 × (B − V )scaled − 0.65 × dscaled − 0.14 × Teff,scaled

PC2 = −0.06 × Prot,scaled − 0.38 × Vscaled − 0.57 × (B − V )scaled + 0.15 × dscaled + 0.71 × Teff,scaled PC = −0.46 × P − 0.55 × V + 0.65 × (B − V ) 3 rot,scaled scaled scaled (C5) − 0.14 × dscaled + 0.22 × Teff,scaled

PC4 = −0.65 × Prot,scaled − 0.14 × Vscaled − 0.49 × (B − V )scaled − 0.31 × dscaled − 0.47 × Teff,scaled

PC5 = −0.17 × Prot,scaled + 0.56 × Vscaled + 0.05 × (B − V )scaled − 0.66 × dscaled + 0.46 × Teff,scaled Table 9 lists the correlation coefficients between the principal components and the stellar parameters. The first principal component is strongly correlated with Prot and d, while B − V and Teff are more significant in PC2. Prot alone is also correlated with PC3 and PC4. We drop PC5 from the regression analysis, since this component is not strongly correlated with any of the stellar parameters, and find that the linear model appears to describe the sample FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 27 of non-planet hosts better than the sample of planet hosts. We find larger Spearman rank coefficients between the models and observed fractional luminosities for all four elements (see Table 10) in the non-planet hosts than in the planet hosting sample. Both PC1 and PC2 contribute significantly to the spread in the data for all ions except Si III, again in contrast with the planet-hosting sample. 28 France et al.

TABLE 7 Correlations between Stellar Parameters and Principal Components: Planet Hosts

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value

−16 Prot -0.798 2 × 10 -0.144 0.2 -0.165 0.2 0.287 0.02 0.190 0.1 -0.0128 0.9 V -0.455 9 × 10−5 0.653 1 × 10−9 -0.256 0.03 -0.173 0.2 0.293 0.01 0.0948 0.4 B − V -0.929 2 × 10−30 -0.0144 0.9 0.160 0.2 -0.168 0.2 0.354 0.003 0.0152 0.9 d 0.558 6 × 10−7 0.654 1 × 10−9 -0.522 4 × 10−6 0.0368 0.8 0.120 0.3 -0.0407 0.7 −30 Teff 0.927 3 × 10 0.0807 0.5 -0.199 0.1 0.189 0.1 -0.285 0.02 0.136 0.3 log (SPI) 0.397 7 × 10−4 0.694 4 × 10−11 0.512 7 × 10−6 0.410 5 × 10−4 0.00216 0.986 -0.0449 0.7

Note.— ρ is the Spearman rank coefficient, where |ρ| = 1 for a perfect correlation and ρ = 0 when the data are uncorrelated. The p-value indicates the likelihood of obtaining |ρ| closer to 1, under the assumption that there is no correlation between the two parameters (i.e. the data are randomly distributed). Here we define “significant” correlations here as having |ρ| > 0.5 (marked in bold).

TABLE 8 Multiple Linear Regression Results: Principal Components as Predictor Variables for Planet Hosts

Element Predictor Variable β 95% Confidence Interval

NV PC1 -0.2516 (-0.356, -0.147) PC2 0.3193 (0.123, 0.516) PC3 0.3928 (0.166, 0.620) y-intercept -0.0092 (-0.032, 0.014) ρ 0.581 p = 1 × 10−6 Si III PC1 0.0562 (-0.071, 0.184) PC2 0.2424 (0.005, 0.480) PC3 0.3029 (0.024, 0.582) y-intercept -0.0067 (-0.035, 0.021) ρ 0.370 p = 3 × 10−3 Si IV PC1 -0.0012 (-0.158, 0.156) PC2 0.288 (-0.022, 0.598) PC3 0.252 (-0.115, 0.619) y-intercept 0.0008 (-0.034, 0.035) ρ 0.325 p = 0.01 CII PC1 0.0307 (-0.122, 0.183) PC2 0.268 (-0.010, 0.546) PC3 0.309 (-0.047, 0.665) y-intercept 0.0027 (-0.030, 0.036) ρ 0.327 p = 0.01

Note.— ρ is the Spearman rank coefficient, calculated between the multiple linear regression model and the observed fractional luminosities in a given element.

TABLE 9 Correlations between Stellar Parameters and Principal Components: Non-Planet Hosts

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value ρ p-value

−7 Prot 0.796 1 × 10 -0.133 0.5 -0.552 0.002 -0.566 0.001 -0.0260 0.9 V -0.365 0.05 -0.312 0.09 -0.187 0.3 0.180 0.3 -0.458 0.01 B − V 0.230 0.2 -0.868 5 × 10−10 0.287 0.1 -0.170 0.4 0.128 0.5 d -0.901 1 × 10−11 0.381 0.04 -0.269 0.2 -0.141 0.5 -0.421 0.02 −12 Teff -0.471 0.009 0.905 7 × 10 -0.0376 0.8 -0.0109 0.9 -0.0245 0.9

Note.— ρ is the Spearman rank coefficient, where |ρ| = 1 for a perfect correlation and ρ = 0 when the data are uncorrelated. The p-value indicates the likelihood of obtaining |ρ| closer to 1, under the assumption that there is no correlation between the two parameters (i.e. the data are randomly distributed). Here we define “significant” correlations here as having |ρ| > 0.5 (marked in bold). FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 29

TABLE 10 Multiple Linear Regression Results: Principal Components as Predictor Variables for Non-Planet Hosts

Element Predictor Variable β 95% Confidence Interval

NV PC1 -0.5461 (-0.810, -0.282) PC2 -0.3460 (-0.578, -0.114) PC3 0.8376 (0.047, 1.628) PC4 0.4471 (-0.327, 1.221) y-intercept -0.0161 (-0.068, 0.036) ρ 0.897 p = 3 × 10−9 Si III PC1 -0.4578 (-0.782, -0.134) PC2 -0.2470 (-0.527, 0.033) PC3 0.7144 (-0.253, 1.682) PC4 0.2960 (-0.639, 1.231) y-intercept -0.0029 (-0.065, 0.059) ρ 0.831 p = 1 × 10−7 Si IV PC1 -0.4907 (-0.739, -0.242) PC2 -0.2423 (-0.452, -0.033) PC3 0.6423 (-0.093, 1.377) PC4 0.3728 (-0.326, 1.071) y-intercept -0.0019 (-0.047, 0.043) ρ 0.833 p = 4 × 10−8 CII PC1 -0.4987 (-0.761, -0.237) PC2 -0.2831 (-0.508, -0.058) PC3 0.8234 (0.042, 1.605) PC4 0.2921 (-0.457, 1.041) y-intercept -0.0165 (-0.064, 0.031) ρ 0.846 p = 7 × 10−9

Note.— ρ is the Spearman rank coefficient, calculated between the multiple linear regression model and the observed fractional luminosities in a given element.

REFERENCES Adams, F. C. 2011, ApJ, 730, 27 Bakos, G. A.,´ Torres, G., P´al,A., Hartman, J., Kov´acs,G., Airapetian, V. S., Glocer, A., Khazanov, G. V., Loyd, R. O. P., Noyes, R. W., Latham, D. W., Sasselov, D. D., Sip˝ocz,B., France, K., Sojka, J., Danchi, W. C., & Liemohn, M. W. 2017, Esquerdo, G. A., Fischer, D. A., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., ApJ, 836, L3 Butler, R. P., Isaacson, H., Howard, A., Vogt, S., Kov´acs,G., Ammler-von Eiff, M. & Reiners, A. 2012, A&A, 542, A116 Fernandez, J., Mo´or, A., Stefanik, R. P., L´az´ar,J., Papp, I., & Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., Delrez, L., Doyle, A. P., S´ari,P. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1724 Faedi, F., Fumel, A., Gillon, M., G´omezMaqueo Chew, Y., Baliunas, S., Sokoloff, D., & Soon, W. 1996, ApJ, 457, L99 Hellier, C., Jehin, E., Lendl, M., Maxted, P. F. L., Pepe, F., Baliunas, S. L., Henry, G. W., Donahue, R. A., Fekel, F. C., & Pollacco, D., Queloz, D., S´egransan,D., Skillen, I., Smalley, B., Soon, W. H. 1997, ApJ, 474, L119 Smith, A. M. S., Southworth, J., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Turner, Balona, L. A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3420 O. D., Udry, S., & West, R. G. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1114 Bastian, T. S., Dulk, G. A., & Leblanc, Y. 2000, ApJ, 545, 1058 Anglada-Escud´e,G., Amado, P. J., Barnes, J., Berdi˜nas,Z. M., Bastian, T. S., Villadsen, J., Maps, A., Hallinan, G., & Beasley, Butler, R. P., Coleman, G. A. L., de La Cueva, I., Dreizler, S., A. J. 2018, ApJ, 857, 133 Endl, M., Giesers, B., Jeffers, S. V., Jenkins, J. S., Jones, Belu, A. R., Selsis, F., Morales, J.-C., Ribas, I., Cossou, C., & H. R. A., Kiraga, M., K¨urster,M., L´opez-Gonz´alez,M. J., Rauer, H. 2011, A&A, 525, A83 Marvin, C. J., Morales, N., Morin, J., Nelson, R. P., Ortiz, Ben-Jaffel, L. & Ballester, G. E. 2013, A&A, 553, A52 J. L., Ofir, A., Paardekooper, S.-J., Reiners, A., Rodr´ıguez,E., Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 8 Rodr´ıguez-L´opez, C., Sarmiento, L. F., Strachan, J. P., Boesgaard, A. M., Lum, M. G., Deliyannis, C. P., King, J. R., Tsapras, Y., Tuomi, M., & Zechmeister, M. 2016a, Nature, 536, Pinsonneault, M. H., & Somers, G. 2016, ApJ, 830, 49 437 Bonfanti, A., Ortolani, S., Piotto, G., & Nascimbeni, V. 2015, —. 2016b, Nature, 536, 437 A&A, 575, A18 Arentoft, T., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., Bazot, M., Bonfils, X., Gillon, M., Udry, S., Armstrong, D., Bouchy, F., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Dall, T. H., Karoff, C., Carrier, F., Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Fumel, A., Jehin, E., Lendl, M., Eggenberger, P., Sosnowska, D., Wittenmyer, R. A., Endl, M., Lovis, C., Mayor, M., McCormac, J., Neves, V., Pepe, F., Metcalfe, T. S., Hekker, S., Reffert, S., Butler, R. P., Bruntt, Perrier, C., Pollaco, D., Queloz, D., & Santos, N. C. 2012, H., Kiss, L. L., O’Toole, S. J., Kambe, E., Ando, H., Izumiura, A&A, 546, A27 H., Sato, B., Hartmann, M., Hatzes, A., Bouchy, F., Mosser, Booth, R. S., Poppenhaeger, K., Watson, C. A., Silva Aguirre, V., B., Appourchaux, T., Barban, C., Berthomieu, G., Garcia, & Wolk, S. J. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1012 R. A., Michel, E., Provost, J., Turck-Chi`eze,S., Marti´c,M., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., Lovis, C., Udry, S., Benz, W., Bertaux, Lebrun, J.-C., Schmitt, J., Bertaux, J.-L., Bonanno, A., J.-L., Delfosse, X., Mordasini, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., & Benatti, S., Claudi, R. U., Cosentino, R., Leccia, S., Frandsen, Segransan, D. 2009, A&A, 496, 527 S., Brogaard, K., Glowienka, L., Grundahl, F., & Stempels, E. Bourrier, V. & Lecavelier des Etangs, A. 2013, A&A, 557, A124 2008, ApJ, 687, 1180 Brandenburg, A., Mathur, S., & Metcalfe, T. S. 2017, ApJ, 845, Ayres, T. R. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 1641 79 —. 2010, ApJS, 187, 149 Brown, D. J. A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1844 Baines, E. K., McAlister, H. A., ten Brummelaar, T. A., Turner, Brown, T. M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R. L., Noyes, R. W., N. H., Sturmann, J., Sturmann, L., Goldfinger, P. J., & & Burrows, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 699 Ridgway, S. T. 2008, ApJ, 680, 728 30 France et al.

Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Everett, M. E., & Esquerdo, G. A. France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., Youngblood, A., Brown, A., Schneider, 2011, AJ, 142, 112 P. C., Hawley, S. L., Froning, C. S., Linsky, J. L., Roberge, A., Buchhave, L. A. & Latham, D. W. 2015, ApJ, 808, 187 Buccino, A. P., Davenport, J. R. A., Fontenla, J. M., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Brown, T. M., Kaltenegger, L., Kowalski, A. F., Mauas, P. J. D., Miguel, Y., Contos, A. R., Korzennik, S. G., Nisenson, P., & Noyes, R. W. Redfield, S., Rugheimer, S., Tian, F., Vieytes, M. C., 1999, ApJ, 526, 916 Walkowicz, L. M., & Weisenburger, K. L. 2016a, ApJ, 820, 89 Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints France, K., Parke Loyd, R. O., Youngblood, A., Brown, A., Cauley, P. W., Redfield, S., Jensen, A. G., Barman, T., Endl, M., Schneider, P. C., Hawley, S. L., Froning, C. S., Linsky, J. L., & Cochran, W. D. 2015, ApJ, 810, 13 Roberge, A., Buccino, A. P., Davenport, J. R. A., Fontenla, Chabrier, G. & Baraffe, I. 1995, ApJ, 451, L29 J. M., Kaltenegger, L., Kowalski, A. F., Mauas, P. J. D., Christensen, U. R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A. 2009, Nature, Miguel, Y., Redfield, S., Rugheimer, S., Tian, F., Vieytes, 457, 167 M. C., Walkowicz, L. M., & Weisenburger, K. L. 2016b, ApJ, Christian, D. J., Mathioudakis, M., Bloomfield, D. S., Dupuis, J., 820, 89 & Keenan, F. P. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1140 France, K., Stocke, J. T., Yang, H., Linsky, J. L., Wolven, B. C., Craig, N., Abbott, M., Finley, D., Jessop, H., Howell, S. B., Froning, C. S., Green, J. C., & Osterman, S. N. 2010, ApJ, 712, Mathioudakis, M., Sommers, J., Vallerga, J. V., & Malina, 1277 R. F. 1997, ApJS, 113, 131 Fuhrmann, K. & Bernkopf, J. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1563 Cuntz, M., Saar, S. H., & Musielak, Z. E. 2000, ApJ, 533, L151 Fuhrmann, K., Pfeiffer, M. J., & Bernkopf, J. 1997, A&A, 326, da Silva, R., Milone, A. d. C., & Rocha-Pinto, H. J. 2015, A&A, 1081 580, A24 —. 1998, A&A, 336, 942 Deming, D., Seager, S., Winn, J., Miller-Ricci, E., Clampin, M., Fulton, B. J., Howard, A. W., Weiss, L. M., Sinukoff, E., Lindler, D., Greene, T., Charbonneau, D., Laughlin, G., Ricker, Petigura, E. A., Isaacson, H., Hirsch, L., Marcy, G. W., Henry, G., Latham, D., & Ennico, K. 2009, PASP, 121, 952 G. W., Grunblatt, S. K., Huber, D., von Braun, K., Boyajian, Dere, K. P., Landi, E., Young, P. R., Del Zanna, G., Landini, M., T. S., Kane, S. R., Wittrock, J., Horch, E. P., Ciardi, D. R., & Mason, H. E. 2009, A&A, 498, 915 Howell, S. B., Wright, J. T., & Ford, E. B. 2016, ApJ, 830, 46 DeWarf, L. E., Datin, K. M., & Guinan, E. F. 2010, ApJ, 722, 343 Gaidos, E. J. & Gonzalez, G. 2002, na, 7, 211 do Nascimento, Jr., J.-D., Vidotto, A. A., Petit, P., Folsom, C., Gaidos, E. J., Henry, G. W., & Henry, S. M. 2000, AJ, 120, 1006 Castro, M., Marsden, S. C., Morin, J., Porto de Mello, G. F., Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, ApJ, 833, L4 Meibom, S., Jeffers, S. V., Guinan, E., & Ribas, I. 2016, ApJ, Ge, Z. S., Bi, S. L., Chen, Y. Q., Li, T. D., Zhao, J. K., Liu, K., 820, L15 Ferguson, J. W., & Wu, Y. Q. 2016, ApJ, 833, 161 Donahue, R. A., Saar, S. H., & Baliunas, S. L. 1996, ApJ, 466, 384 Gray, D. F. 1994, PASP, 106, 1248 Dupuis, J., Vennes, S., Bowyer, S., Pradhan, A. K., & Thejll, P. Grießmeier, J.-M. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science 1995, ApJ, 455, 574 Library, Vol. 411, Characterizing Stellar and Exoplanetary Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., Bonfils, X., Lecavelier des Etangs, Environments, ed. H. Lammer & M. Khodachenko, 213 A., H´ebrard,G., Sing, D. K., Wheatley, P. J., Vidal-Madjar, Guinan, E. F., Engle, S. G., & Durbin, A. 2016, ApJ, 821, 81 A., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Forveille, T., & Moutou, C. 2012, Hale, A. 1994, AJ, 107, 306 A&A, 547, A18 Hallam, K. L., Altner, B., & Endal, A. S. 1991, ApJ, 372, 610 Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., Wheatley, P. J., Lecavelier des Hallinan, G., Sirothia, S. K., Antonova, A., Ishwara-Chandra, Etangs, A., H´ebrard,G., Udry, S., Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., C. H., Bourke, S., Doyle, J. G., Hartman, J., & Golden, A. D´esert,J.-M., Sing, D. K., & Vidal-Madjar, A. 2015, Nature, 2013, ApJ, 762, 34 522, 459 Hempelmann, A., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Schultz, M., Ruediger, Eisenbeiss, T., Ammler-von Eiff, M., Roell, T., Mugrauer, M., G., & Stepien, K. 1995, A&A, 294, 515 Adam, C., Neuh¨auser,R., Schmidt, T. O. B., & Bedalov, A. Henry, G. W., Donahue, R. A., & Baliunas, S. L. 2002, ApJ, 577, 2013, A&A, 556, A53 L111 Fekel, Jr., F. C. 1983, ApJ, 268, 274 Houdebine, E. R. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1657 Fichtinger, B., G¨udel,M., Mutel, R. L., Hallinan, G., Gaidos, E., Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Skinner, S. L., Lynch, C., & Gayley, K. G. 2017, A&A, 599, Wright, J. T., Henry, G. W., Giguere, M. J., Isaacson, H., A127 Valenti, J. A., Anderson, J., & Piskunov, N. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Frink, S., 75 & Apps, K. 2001, ApJ, 551, 1107 Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Henry, Wright, J. T., Henry, G. W., Isaacson, H., Valenti, J. A., G. W., Pourbaix, D., Walp, B., Misch, A. A., & Wright, J. T. Anderson, J., & Piskunov, N. E. 2011, ApJ, 726, 73 2003, ApJ, 586, 1394 Huang, Y., Liu, X.-W., Yuan, H.-B., Xiang, M.-S., Chen, B.-Q., Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Walp, B., & Zhang, H.-W. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2863 & Apps, K. 2002, PASP, 114, 529 Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., Homeier, D., Fontenla, J. M., Harder, J., Livingston, W., Snow, M., & Woods, Reiners, A., Barman, T., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2013, A&A, 553, T. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 116, A6 20108 Ignace, R., Giroux, M. L., & Luttermoser, D. G. 2010, MNRAS, Fontenla, J. M., Linsky, J. L., Witbrod, J., France, K., Buccino, 402, 2609 A., Mauas, P., Vieytes, M., & Walkowicz, L. M. 2016, ApJ, Isaacson, H. & Fischer, D. 2010a, ApJ, 725, 875 830, 154 —. 2010b, ApJ, 725, 875 Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. Jones, B. W. & Sleep, P. N. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1259 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Jones, H. R. A., Butler, R. P., Tinney, C. G., Marcy, G. W., Fossati, L., Haswell, C. A., Froning, C. S., Hebb, L., Holmes, S., Carter, B. D., Penny, A. J., McCarthy, C., & Bailey, J. 2006, Kolb, U., Helling, C., Carter, A., Wheatley, P., Collier MNRAS, 369, 249 Cameron, A., Loeillet, B., Pollacco, D., Street, R., Stempels, Kajatkari, P., Jetsu, L., Cole, E., Hackman, T., Henry, G. W., H. C., Simpson, E., Udry, S., Joshi, Y. C., West, R. G., Skillen, Joutsiniemi, S.-L., Lehtinen, J., M¨akel¨a,V., Porceddu, S., I., & Wilson, D. 2010, ApJ, 714, L222 Ryyn¨anen,K., & Solea, V. 2015, A&A, 577, A84 Fossati, L., Koskinen, T., France, K., Cubillos, P. E., Haswell, Kervella, P., Th´evenin, F., S´egransan,D., Berthomieu, G., Lopez, C. A., Lanza, A. F., & Pillitteri, I. 2018, AJ, 155, 113 B., Morel, P., & Provost, J. 2003, A&A, 404, 1087 France, K. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9904, Space Telescopes and Kiraga, M. 2012, actaa, 62, 67 Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., Fortney, J. J., 99040M Agol, E., Cowan, N. B., Showman, A. P., Cooper, C. S., & France, K., Linsky, J. L., Tian, F., Froning, C. S., & Roberge, A. Megeath, S. T. 2007, Nature, 447, 183 2012, ApJ, 750, L32 Koskinen, T. T., Harris, M. J., Yelle, R. V., & Lavvas, P. 2013, Icarus, 226, 1678 FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 31

Kruczek, N., France, K., Evonosky, W., Loyd, R. O. P., Marmier, M., S´egransan,D., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Youngblood, A., Roberge, A., Wittenmyer, R. A., Stocke, J. T., Queloz, D., Lovis, C., Naef, D., Santos, N. C., Alonso, R., Fleming, B., & Hoadley, K. 2017, ApJ, 845, 3 Alves, S., Berthet, S., Chazelas, B., Demory, B.-O., Dumusque, Lammer, H., G¨udel,M., Kulikov, Y., Ribas, I., Zaqarashvili, X., Eggenberger, A., Figueira, P., Gillon, M., Hagelberg, J., T. V., Khodachenko, M. L., Kislyakova, K. G., Gr¨oller,H., Lendl, M., Mardling, R. A., M´egevand, D., Neveu, M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., Fichtinger, B., Krauss, S., Sahlmann, J., Sosnowska, D., Tewes, M., & Triaud, A. H. M. J. Hausleitner, W., Holmstr¨om,M., Sanz-Forcada, J., 2013, A&A, 551, A90 Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Hanslmeier, A., Shematovich, V. I., Maxted, P. F. L., Serenelli, A. M., & Southworth, J. 2015, A&A, Bisikalo, D., Rauer, H., & Fridlund, M. 2012, Earth, Planets, 577, A90 and Space, 64, 179 Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, Lammer, H., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., Khodachenko, M. L., N. C., & Burnet, M. 2004, A&A, 415, 391 Panchenko, M., Kulikov, Y. N., Zhang, T. L., Lichtenegger, Mazeh, T., Naef, D., Torres, G., Latham, D. W., Mayor, M., H. I. M., Erkaev, N. V., Wuchterl, G., Micela, G., Penz, T., Beuzit, J.-L., Brown, T. M., Buchhave, L., Burnet, M., Carney, Biernat, H. K., Weingrill, J., Steller, M., Ottacher, H., Hasiba, B. W., Charbonneau, D., Drukier, G. A., Laird, J. B., Pepe, F., J., & Hanslmeier, A. 2009, A&A, 506, 399 Perrier, C., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Sivan, J.-P., Udry, S., & Lammer, H., Zerkle, A. L., Gebauer, S., Tosi, N., Noack, L., Zucker, S. 2000, ApJ, 532, L55 Scherf, M., Pilat-Lohinger, E., G¨udel,M., Grenfell, J. L., Menager, H., Barth´elemy, M., Koskinen, T., Lilensten, J., Godolt, M., & Nikolaou, A. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 2 Ehrenreich, D., & Parkinson, C. D. 2013, Icarus, 226, 1709 Lanza, A. F. 2008, A&A, 487, 1163 Mennesson, B., Gaudi, S., Seager, S., Cahoy, K., —. 2010, A&A, 512, A77 Domagal-Goldman, S., Feinberg, L., Guyon, O., Kasdin, J., —. 2012, A&A, 544, A23 Marois, C., Mawet, D., Tamura, M., Mouillet, D., Prusti, T., —. 2013, A&A, 557, A31 Quirrenbach, A., Robinson, T., Rogers, L., Scowen, P., Lanza, A. F. 2015, in Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Somerville, R., Stapelfeldt, K., Stern, D., Still, M., Turnbull, Systems, and the Sun, Vol. 18, 18th Cambridge Workshop on M., Booth, J., Kiessling, A., Kuan, G., & Warfield, K. 2016, in Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. G. T. van Belle & Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9904, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation H. C. Harris, 811–830 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 99040L —. 2018, A&A, 610, A81 Meschiari, S., Laughlin, G., Vogt, S. S., Butler, R. P., Rivera, Lazio, J., Farrell, W. M., Dietrick, J., Greenlees, E., Hogan, E., E. J., Haghighipour, N., & Jalowiczor, P. 2011, ApJ, 727, 117 Jones, C., & Hennig, L. A. 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints Messina, S., Desidera, S., Turatto, M., Lanzafame, A. C., & Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Sirothia, S. K., Gopal-Krishna, & Guinan, E. F. 2010, A&A, 520, A15 Zarka, P. 2013, A&A, 552, A65 Mordasini, C., Mayor, M., Udry, S., Lovis, C., S´egransan,D., Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74 Benz, W., Bertaux, J.-L., Bouchy, F., Lo Curto, G., Moutou, Linsky, J. L., Bushinsky, R., Ayres, T., Fontenla, J., & France, C., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., & Santos, N. C. 2011, A&A, K. 2012a, ApJ, 745, 25 526, A111 Linsky, J. L., Bushinsky, R., Ayres, T., & France, K. 2012b, ApJ, Moutou, C., H´ebrard,G., Bouchy, F., Arnold, L., Santos, N. C., 754, 69 Astudillo-Defru, N., Boisse, I., Bonfils, X., Borgniet, S., Linsky, J. L., Fontenla, J., & France, K. 2014, ApJ, 780, 61 Delfosse, X., D´ıaz,R. F., Ehrenreich, D., Forveille, T., Linsky, J. L., Yang, H., France, K., Froning, C. S., Green, J. C., Gregorio, J., Labrevoir, O., Lagrange, A.-M., Montagnier, G., Stocke, J. T., & Osterman, S. N. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1291 Montalto, M., Pepe, F., Sahlmann, J., Santerne, A., S´egransan, Lopez, E. D. & Fortney, J. J. 2013, ApJ, 776, 2 D., Udry, S., & Vanhuysse, M. 2014, A&A, 563, A22 Louden, T., Wheatley, P. J., & Briggs, K. 2017, MNRAS, 464, Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009a, ApJ, 2396 693, 23 Lovis, C., Dumusque, X., Santos, N. C., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., —. 2009b, ApJ, 693, 23 Pepe, F., Queloz, D., S´egransan, D., & Udry, S. 2011, ArXiv Naef, D., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Udry, e-prints S., & Burnet, M. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Lovis, C., Mayor, M., Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, Conference Series, Vol. 219, Disks, Planetesimals, and Planets, N. C., Udry, S., Benz, W., Bertaux, J.-L., Mordasini, C., & ed. G. Garz´on,C. Eiroa, D. de Winter, & T. J. Mahoney, 602 Sivan, J.-P. 2005, A&A, 437, 1121 Neves, V., Bonfils, X., Santos, N. C., Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Lovis, C., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Alibert, Y., Benz, W., Bouchy, Allard, F., & Udry, S. 2013, A&A, 551, A36 F., Correia, A. C. M., Laskar, J., Mordasini, C., Queloz, D., Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Berlind, P., Calkins, Santos, N. C., Udry, S., Bertaux, J.-L., & Sivan, J.-P. 2006, M. L., & Mink, J. 2017a, ApJ, 834, 85 Nature, 441, 305 —. 2017b, ApJ, 834, 85 Loyd, R. O. P. & France, K. 2014, ApJS, 211, 9 Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Berta-Thompson, Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., & A., Y. 2016, ApJ-inprep, 000, 0 Z. K., Dittmann, J. A., & West, A. A. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93 Loyd, R. O. P., Koskinen, T. T., France, K., Schneider, C., & Nordstr¨om,B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., Holmberg, J., Pont, F., Redfield, S. 2017, ApJ, 834, L17 Jørgensen, B. R., Olsen, E. H., Udry, S., & Mowlavi, N. 2004, Maldonado, J., Scandariato, G., Stelzer, B., Biazzo, K., Lanza, A&A, 418, 989 A. F., Maggio, A., Micela, G., Gonz´alez-Alvarez,´ E., Affer, L., Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., Claudi, R. U., Cosentino, R., Damasso, M., Desidera, S., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763 Gonz´alezHern´andez,J. I., Gratton, R., Leto, G., Messina, S., Olspert, N., Lehtinen, J. J., K¨apyl¨a,M. J., Pelt, J., & Molinari, E., Pagano, I., Perger, M., Piotto, G., Rebolo, R., Grigorievskiy, A. 2017, ArXiv e-prints Ribas, I., Sozzetti, A., Su´arezMascare˜no, A., & Zanmar Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105 Sanchez, R. 2017, A&A, 598, A27 Pawellek, N., Krivov, A. V., Marshall, J. P., Montesinos, B., Malo, L., Artigau, E.,´ Doyon, R., Lafreni`ere,D., Albert, L., & Abrah´am,P.,´ Mo´or,A., Bryden, G., & Eiroa, C. 2014, ApJ, Gagn´e,J. 2014, ApJ, 788, 81 792, 65 Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Pearson, K. 1901, Philosophical Magazine, 11, 559 Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64 Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9 Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D. A., & Vogt, S. S. 2004, Pepe, F., Lovis, C., S´egransan,D., Benz, W., Bouchy, F., in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. Dumusque, X., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., & Udry, 321, Extrasolar Planets: Today and Tomorrow, ed. J. Beaulieu, S. 2011a, A&A, 534, A58 A. Lecavelier Des Etangs, & C. Terquem, 3 —. 2011b, A&A, 534, A58 Peres-Neto, P. R., Jackson, D. A., & Somers, K. M. 2005, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 49, 974 Petit, P., Donati, J.-F., Auri`ere,M., Landstreet, J. D., Ligni`eres, F., Marsden, S., Mouillet, D., Paletou, F., Toqu´e,N., & Wade, G. A. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 837 32 France et al.

Pettersen, B. R. 1980, AJ, 85, 871 Rich, E. A., Wisniewski, J. P., McElwain, M. W., Hashimoto, J., Pillitteri, I., Maggio, A., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Wolk, S. J., & Kudo, T., Kusakabe, N., Okamoto, Y. K., Abe, L., Akiyama, Matsakos, T. 2015, ApJ, 805, 52 E., Brandner, W., Brandt, T. D., Cargile, P., Carson, J. C., Pillitteri, I., Wolk, S. J., Sciortino, S., & Antoci, V. 2014, A&A, Currie, T. M., Egner, S., Feldt, M., Fukagawa, M., Goto, M., 567, A128 Grady, C. A., Guyon, O., Hayano, Y., Hayashi, M., Hayashi, Pizzolato, N., Maggio, A., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., & Ventura, P. S. S., Hebb, L., He lminiak,K. G., Henning, T., Hodapp, K. W., 2003, A&A, 397, 147 Ishii, M., Iye, M., Janson, M., Kandori, R., Knapp, G. R., Poppenhaeger, K., Robrade, J., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2010, Kuzuhara, M., Kwon, J., Matsuo, T., Mayama, S., Miyama, S., A&A, 515, A98+ Momose, M., Morino, J.-I., Moro-Martin, A., Nakagawa, T., Poppenhaeger, K. & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2011, ApJ, 735, 59 Nishimura, T., Oh, D., Pyo, T.-S., Schlieder, J., Serabyn, E., Poppenhaeger, K. & Wolk, S. J. 2014, A&A, 565, L1 Sitko, M. L., Suenaga, T., Suto, H., Suzuki, R., Takahashi, Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Weber, L., Blecha, A., Burnet, M., Y. H., Takami, M., Takato, N., Terada, H., Thalmann, C., Confino, B., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Santos, N., & Udry, S. 1999, Tomono, D., Turner, E. L., Watanabe, M., Yamada, T., ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints Takami, H., Usuda, T., & Tamura, M. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1736 Rahmati, A., Cravens, T. E., Nagy, A. F., Fox, J. L., Bougher, Rivera, E. J., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Laughlin, G., Henry, S. W., Lillis, R. J., Ledvina, S. A., Larson, D. E., Dunn, P., & G. W., & Meschiari, S. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1492 Croxell, J. A. 2014, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4812 Roberge, A. & Luvoir Mission Concept Team. 2017, in LPI Ram´ırez,I., Yong, D., Guti´errez,E., Endl, M., Lambert, D. L., & Contributions, Vol. 2042, Habitable Worlds 2017: A System Do Nascimento, Jr., J.-D. 2017, ApJ, 850, 80 Science Workshop, 4065 Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., Appourchaux, T., Benz, W., Robertson, P., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., MacQueen, P. J., Brandeker, A., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Deleuil, M., Gizon, Wittenmyer, R. A., Horner, J., Brugamyer, E. J., Simon, A. E., L., Goupil, M.-J., G¨udel,M., Janot-Pacheco, E., Mas-Hesse, Barnes, S. I., & Caldwell, C. 2012, ApJ, 749, 39 M., Pagano, I., Piotto, G., Pollacco, D., Santos, C.,˙ Smith, A., Rogers, T. M. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0131 Su´arez,J.-C., Szab´o,R., Udry, S., Adibekyan, V., Alibert, Y., Saar, S. H. & Osten, R. A. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 803 Almenara, J.-M., Amaro-Seoane, P., Eiff, M. A.-v., Asplund, Sanchis-Ojeda, R. & Winn, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 743, 61 M., Antonello, E., Barnes, S., Baudin, F., Belkacem, K., Santos, N. C., Bouchy, F., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bergemann, M., Bihain, G., Birch, A. C., Bonfils, X., Boisse, I., Udry, S., Lovis, C., Bazot, M., Benz, W., Bertaux, J.-L., Lo Bonomo, A. S., Borsa, F., Brand˜ao,I. M., Brocato, E., Brun, Curto, G., Delfosse, X., Mordasini, C., Naef, D., Sivan, J.-P., & S., Burleigh, M., Burston, R., Cabrera, J., Cassisi, S., Chaplin, Vauclair, S. 2004, A&A, 426, L19 W., Charpinet, S., Chiappini, C., Church, R. P., Csizmadia, S., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Udry, Cunha, M., Damasso, M., Davies, M. B., Deeg, H. J., D´ıaz, S., & Burnet, M. 2001, A&A, 379, 999 R. F., Dreizler, S., Dreyer, C., Eggenberger, P., Ehrenreich, D., Sanz-Forcada, J., Micela, G., Ribas, I., Pollock, A. M. T., Eiroa, Eigm¨uller,P., Erikson, A., Farmer, R., Feltzing, S., de Oliveira C., Velasco, A., Solano, E., & Garc´ıa-Alvarez,´ D. 2011, A&A, Fialho, F., Figueira, P., Forveille, T., Fridlund, M., Garc´ıa, 532, A6 R. A., Giommi, P., Giuffrida, G., Godolt, M., Gomes da Silva, Schneider, A. C. & Shkolnik, E. L. 2018, AJ, 155, 122 J., Granzer, T., Grenfell, J. L., Grotsch-Noels, A., G¨unther, E., Schuler, S. C., Flateau, D., Cunha, K., King, J. R., Ghezzi, L., & Haswell, C. A., Hatzes, A. P., H´ebrard,G., Hekker, S., Helled, Smith, V. V. 2011, ApJ, 732, 55 R., Heng, K., Jenkins, J. M., Johansen, A., Khodachenko, Schwarz, G. 1978, Ann. Statist., 6, 461 M. L., Kislyakova, K. G., Kley, W., Kolb, U., Krivova, N., See, V., Jardine, M., Vidotto, A. A., Donati, J.-F., Boro Saikia, Kupka, F., Lammer, H., Lanza, A. F., Lebreton, Y., Magrin, S., Fares, R., Folsom, C. P., H´ebrard, E.´ M., Jeffers, S. V., D., Marcos-Arenal, P., Marrese, P. M., Marques, J. P., Martins, Marsden, S. C., Morin, J., Petit, P., Waite, I. A., & BCool J., Mathis, S., Mathur, S., Messina, S., Miglio, A., Montalban, Collaboration. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1542 J., Montalto, M., Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G., Moradi, H., S´egransan,D., Mayor, M., Udry, S., Lovis, C., Benz, W., Bouchy, Moravveji, E., Mordasini, C., Morel, T., Mortier, A., F., Lo Curto, G., Mordasini, C., Moutou, C., Naef, D., Pepe, Nascimbeni, V., Nelson, R. P., Nielsen, M. B., Noack, L., F., Queloz, D., & Santos, N. 2011, A&A, 535, A54 Norton, A. J., Ofir, A., Oshagh, M., Ouazzani, R.-M., P´apics, S´egransan,D., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, P., Parro, V. C., Petit, P., Plez, B., Poretti, E., Quirrenbach, D., Santos, N. C., Demory, B.-O., Figueira, P., Gillon, M., A., Ragazzoni, R., Raimondo, G., Rainer, M., Reese, D. R., Marmier, M., M´egevand, D., Sosnowska, D., Tamuz, O., & Redmer, R., Reffert, S., Rojas-Ayala, B., Roxburgh, I. W., Triaud, A. H. M. J. 2010, A&A, 511, A45 Salmon, S., Santerne, A., Schneider, J., Schou, J., Schuh, S., Segura, A., Walkowicz, L. M., Meadows, V., Kasting, J., & Schunker, H., Silva-Valio, A., Silvotti, R., Skillen, I., Snellen, I., Hawley, S. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751 Sohl, F., Sousa, S. G., Sozzetti, A., Stello, D., Strassmeier, Shields, A. L., Ballard, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2016, Phys. Rep., K. G., Svanda,ˇ M., Szab´o,G. M., Tkachenko, A., Valencia, D., 663, 1 Van Grootel, V., Vauclair, S. D., Ventura, P., Wagner, F. W., Shkolnik, E., Walker, G. A. H., & Bohlender, D. A. 2003, ApJ, Walton, N. A., Weingrill, J., Werner, S. C., Wheatley, P. J., & 597, 1092 Zwintz, K. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249 Shkolnik, E., Walker, G. A. H., Bohlender, D. A., Gu, P.-G., & Reddy, A. B. S. & Lambert, D. L. 2017, ApJ, 845, 151 K¨urster,M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1075 Redfield, S. & Linsky, J. L. 2004, ApJ, 602, 776 Shkolnik, E. L. & Barman, T. S. 2014, AJ, 148, 64 Ribas, I., Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Reiners, A., Leconte, J., Shkolnik, E. L. & Llama, J. 2017, Signatures of Star-Planet Raymond, S. N., Engle, S. G., Guinan, E. F., Morin, J., Turbet, Interactions, 20 M., Forget, F., & Anglada-Escud´e,G. 2016, A&A, 596, A111 Snellen, I., de Kok, R., Birkby, J. L., Brandl, B., Brogi, M., Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., G¨udel,M., & Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, Keller, C., Kenworthy, M., Schwarz, H., & Stuik, R. 2015, 622, 680 A&A, 576, A59 Rice, J. B. & Strassmeier, K. G. 2001, A&A, 377, 264 Spake, J. J., Sing, D. K., Evans, T. M., Oklopˇci´c,A., Bourrier, V., Kreidberg, L., Rackham, B. V., Irwin, J., Ehrenreich, D., Wyttenbach, A., Wakeford, H. R., Zhou, Y., Chubb, K. L., Nikolov, N., Goyal, J. M., Henry, G. W., Williamson, M. H., Blumenthal, S., Anderson, D. R., Hellier, C., Charbonneau, D., Udry, S., & Madhusudhan, N. 2018, Nature, 557, 68 Stepien, K. 1988, ApJ, 335, 892 Sullivan, P. W., Winn, J. N., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Charbonneau, D., Deming, D., Dressing, C. D., Latham, D. W., Levine, A. M., McCullough, P. R., Morton, T., Ricker, G. R., Vanderspek, R., & Woods, D. 2015, ApJ, 809, 77 FUV activity on F, G, K, and M Exoplanet Host Stars 33

Tamuz, O., S´egransan,D., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Eggenberger, A., Vidotto, A. A., Fares, R., Jardine, M., Donati, J.-F., Opher, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Demory, B.-O., Moutou, C., Catala, C., & Gombosi, T. I. 2012, MNRAS, 423, Figuera, P., Marmier, M., & Montagnier, G. 2008, A&A, 480, 3285 L33 Vidotto, A. A., Jardine, M., & Helling, C. 2010, ApJ, 722, L168 Terrien, R. C., Mahadevan, S., Deshpande, R., & Bender, C. F. Vogt, S. S., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Henry, 2015, ApJS, 220, 16 G. W., Laughlin, G., Wright, J. T., & Johnson, J. A. 2005, Tian, F. 2015, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 432, 126 ApJ, 632, 638 Tian, F., Kasting, J. F., Liu, H.-L., & Roble, R. G. 2008, Journal von Braun, K., Boyajian, T. S., ten Brummelaar, T. A., Kane, of Geophysical Research (Planets), 113, 5008 S. R., van Belle, G. T., Ciardi, D. R., Raymond, S. N., Tilley, M. A., Segura, A., Meadows, V. S., Hawley, S., & L´opez-Morales, M., McAlister, H. A., Schaefer, G., Ridgway, Davenport, J. 2017, ArXiv e-prints S. T., Sturmann, L., Sturmann, J., White, R., Turner, N. H., Tinney, C. G., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Jones, H. R. A., Farrington, C., & Goldfinger, P. J. 2011, ApJ, 740, 49 Penny, A. J., McCarthy, C., Carter, B. D., & Fischer, D. A. Wheatley, P. J., Louden, T., Bourrier, V., Ehrenreich, D., & 2005, ApJ, 623, 1171 Gillon, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L74 Toner, C. G. & Gray, D. F. 1988, ApJ, 334, 1008 Wittrock, J. M., Kane, S. R., Horch, E. P., Howell, S. B., Ciardi, Torres, G. & Ribas, I. 2002a, ApJ, 567, 1140 D. R., & Everett, M. E. 2017, AJ, 154, 184 —. 2002b, ApJ, 567, 1140 Wood, B. E., Laming, J. M., & Karovska, M. 2012, ApJ, 753, 76 Tuomi, M., Jones, H. R. A., Barnes, J. R., Anglada-Escud´e,G., & Wood, B. E., Redfield, S., Linsky, J. L., M¨uller,H.-R., & Zank, Jenkins, J. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1545 G. P. 2005, ApJS, 159, 118 Tuomi, M., Jones, H. R. A., Jenkins, J. S., Tinney, C. G., Butler, Woods, T. N., Chamberlin, P. C., Harder, J. W., Hock, R. A., R. P., Vogt, S. S., Barnes, J. R., Wittenmyer, R. A., O’Toole, Snow, M., Eparvier, F. G., Fontenla, J., McClintock, W. E., & S., Horner, J., Bailey, J., Carter, B. D., Wright, D. J., Salter, Richard, E. C. 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 1101 G. S., & Pinfield, D. 2013, A&A, 551, A79 Woolf, V. M. & Wallerstein, G. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 963 Turner, J. D., Christie, D., Arras, P., Johnson, R. E., & Schmidt, Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., & Vogt, S. S. 2004, C. 2016a, MNRAS, 458, 3880 ApJS, 152, 261 Turner, J. D., Pearson, K. A., Biddle, L. I., Smart, B. M., Zellem, Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Henry, R. T., Teske, J. K., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., Griffith, C. C., G. W., Isaacson, H., & Howard, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 683, L63 Leiter, R. M., Cates, I. T., Nieberding, M. N., Smith, C.-T. W., Yelle, R. V. 2004, Icarus, 170, 167 Thompson, R. M., Hofmann, R., Berube, M. P., Nguyen, C. H., Yıldız, M., C¸elik Orhan, Z., & Kayhan, C. 2016, MNRAS, 462, Small, L. C., Guvenen, B. C., Richardson, L., McGraw, A., 1577 Raphael, B., Crawford, B. E., Robertson, A. N., Tombleson, R., Youngblood, A., France, K., & Loyd, R. O. P. 2016, ApJ-inprep, Carleton, T. M., Towner, A. P. M., Walker-LaFollette, A. M., 000, 0 Hume, J. R., Watson, Z. T., Jones, C. K., Lichtenberger, M. J., Zahn, J.-P. 2008, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 29, EAS Hoglund, S. R., Cook, K. L., Crossen, C. A., Jorgensen, C. R., Publications Series, ed. M.-J. Goupil & J.-P. Zahn, 67–90 Romine, J. M., Thompson, A. R., Villegas, C. F., Wilson, Zarka, P. 2007, Planet. Space Sci., 55, 598 A. A., Sanford, B., Taylor, J. M., & Henz, T. N. 2016b, Zhang, L. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference MNRAS, 459, 789 Series, Vol. 451, 9th Pacific Rim Conference on Stellar Valenti, J. A. & Fischer, D. A. 2005a, ApJS, 159, 141 Astrophysics, ed. S. Qain, K. Leung, L. Zhu, & S. Kwok, 123 —. 2005b, ApJS, 159, 141 Zhao, L., Fischer, D. A., Brewer, J., Giguere, M., & Rojas-Ayala, Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D´esert,J.-M., B. 2018, AJ, 155, 24 Ballester, G. E., Ferlet, R., H´ebrard,G., & Mayor, M. 2003, Nature, 422, 143